tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989Sat, 03 Dec 2016 10:37:12 +0000Law Society of ScotlandScottish GovernmentScottish ParliamentKenny MacaskillScottish Legal Complaints CommissionLord GillJudiciary of ScotlandRegister of Interests for JudgesLord Presidentregister of interestsPetition 1458Freedom of Informationself regulationPetitions Committeecomplaints against lawyersSNPCrown OfficeDouglas MillJane Irvineaccess to legal servicesJohn SwinneyScottish Legal Aid Boardcivil courts reviewLord Hamiltonaccess to justiceScottish Courts ServiceWhich?McKenzie FriendTransparencyJustice CommitteeJudicial ReformMaster PolicyJudicial Complaints ReviewerLegal Services BillConsumer Focus ScotlandOFTFOIPhilip YellandFaculty of AdvocatesAndrew PenmanEileen MastermanMoi AliLord AdvocateMarsh UKNorman HowittLegal AidPetition 1247Court of SessionScottish Solicitors Discipline TribunalFergus EwingLPLA Actlegal aid fraudLord Carlowaycrooked lawyeralternative business structurescivil justiceAlex SalmondMargaret ScanlanScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceSLCCICASLord WoolmanLegal Defence UnionLegal OmbudsmanRosemary AgnewJohn G O'Donnellexpenses allowanceGuarantee FundstandardsIan SmartLorna JackNicola SturgeonBill AitkenCrimeDavid SmithLaw Society of England and WalesLeslie CummingMargo MacDonaldNiels S LockhartPetition PE1033Stormonth Darling SolicitorscensorshipLawyers Behaving BadlyScottish Consumer CouncilScottish Legal Services OmbudsmanWestminsterWillsclaims against solicitorsconsumer protectionKevin DunionLegal Aid strikeName and ShameQatarRoyal Sun Alliance PLCFrank MulhollandHolyroodMichael ClancyNigel DonScottish BordersVictorian Justice SystemnegligenceClass ActionsClient FundsFOI exemptionGillian ThompsonJRW GroupJames Wolffe QCLockerbieRichard KeenScottish National Partyclient compensationcomplaints against accountantscriminal charges against lawyerskelsoJames NessLothian and Borders PoliceOverseas travel of Scottish judgesPolice ScotlandSSDTScottish Election 2007Solicitors From HellTesco Lawannual reportfraudhospitalityjudicial expenseslay memberssleazesolicitors feesBill AlexanderComplaints leviesDouglas WatsonFirst MinisterGlasgow Bar AssociationGovernment Legal Service For ScotlandJedburghKippen CampbellLady SmithParliament HouseParty LitigantsRecusalRoyal Bank of ScotlandScottish ExecutiveSheriff Court Rules CouncilSimpson and MarwickSupreme Courtconflict of interestexpensesgreedsolicitors regulatory historytruth and reconciliationAsbestosBBCCatriona MacfarlaneClient RelationsElaine MotionFinanceGilbert AndersonJudicial Appointments BoardLesley ThomsonMike DaillyNeil StevensonPaul WheelhousePetition PE1388SCDEAScottish ConservativesScottish Information CommissionerScottish Law Agents SocietySheriff CourtThreatindependent regulationwill writersAccountant in BankruptcyBankingChristine GrahameCourt of Session Rules CouncilCourts Reform (Scotland) BillCriminal RecordsDes HudsonEric McQueenFinancial Services AuthorityGarry WatsonHamilton Citizens Advice BureauIan Hanger QCInjustice ScotlandInstitute of Chartered Accountants of ScotlandJamie MillarJohn WilsonJudiciary and Courts BillLegal Services Consumer PanelLord McCluskeyMatthew VickersOCPASProfessor Alan PatersonScottish Parliament Corporate BodyScottish Public Services OmbudsmanSir Fred GoodwinSolicitors (Scotland) Act 1980Solicitors Regulation AuthorityStewart MacKenzieWilliam Gordondishonest solicitorslobbyingmedical negligencepleural plaquesrecruitmentAlistair CockburnAngela BaillieClient FraudConsumer FocusDavid WhittonDr Pamela AbernethyEdinburghElish AngioliniElizabeth CampbellExecutry EstateGLSSGlasgowHeather CapitalHouse of CommonsIpsos MoriJackson CarlawLord HardieMark StrachanMedia ManipulationMichael RobsonMotherwell CollegeNS Lockhart SolicitorsParalegalsPerth Sheriff CourtPeter WatsonPetition PE1197Petition PE1458PolicePoliticsSheriff Alastair Dunlop QCSheriff TaylorSheriffsSnoopingTom McMorrowWylie and Bissetfee notelegal reformmonopolypublishing complaints against the legal professionA silent walk for justiceABSAdam SampsonAlex NeilAnnabel GoldieAnnie BorjessonBill ButlerBlood infections inquiryBorders General HospitalBrodiesCameron RitchieCitizens Advice ScotlandCity of Edinburgh CouncilCivil Justice Advisory GroupComplaints CommitteeComplaints ResearchConservative PartyCouncil of the Law Society of ScotlandDamages (Scotland) BillDr Angela MelvilleEconomyEuropean Commission for the Efficiency of Justice ReportExecutorHackingHon Justice Michael TugendhatHow to write a willIain CattoIain RobertsonIan GordonInformation CommissionerJames KellyJim MartinJohn Home RobertsonJohn LamontKilmarnockLady DorrianLaigh HallLaw Reform Act 1990Law and OrderLay AssistantsLegal Profession BillLinda Costelloe BakerLord BrailsfordLord Justice ClerkLord ReedMacRobertsMartin McAllisterMediationNicol StephenNigel MacfarlaneNorth Lanarkshire CouncilOffice of Fair TradingPaul McBridePetition 1354Proceeds of Crime ActRIPSARoseanna CunninghamScotlandScottish Government Legal DirectorateScottish Labour partyScottish Law CommissionSeason's GreetingsThomas Hugh MurrayTurcan ConnellValerie MacadamWikileaksWikipediaWould Granny swear by the Law Society ?amendmentsconductconsultationcosts of justicedisclosureembezzlementmspspublic petitionssolicitor advocates1996AGMAct of SederuntAlison Di RolloAlistair MorrisAndrew McNamaraAndy WightmanAngus MacDonald MSPBell and Company SolicitorsBill BrackenridgeCathy CraigieChancersChristine McLintockCitizenship EducationClient CareColin McKayCommonwealth Law ConferenceComplaints Against Solicitors ReportConsumer Action GroupCorroborationCourt FeesCourts Reform BillCurriculum for ExcellenceDaily RecordDamages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009David CameronDavid ChaplinDavid FlintDavid McletchieDigital JusticeDouglas ConnellDr Linda PollockECHREdinburgh City CouncilEsther FrancisFAIFirst Minister's QuestionsFleming and ReidFrequent FlyersGlasgow Sheriff CourtGordon Jackson QCGordon MeldrumGovan Law CentreGregory KingGuje BorgessonHepatitis CIndemnity InsuranceIndependenceJack McConnellJohn LogueJohn MacKinnonJohn McGovernJudicial Complaints RulesJudicial Institute for ScotlandJudicial salariesJulian AssangeLLBLack of admissible evidenceLand TitlesLaw CareLiberal DemocratsLinda PollockLord CoulsfieldLord HopeLord OsborneManchester UniversityMarsh McLennan CompaniesMartin WilsonMathew VickersMcGrigorsMichael ForsytheMichael McMahonMinisterial InterferenceMurdo FraserNHS ScotlandNat FraserOne ProfessionPenman LevyPetition 1234PrivacyProfessor Frank StephensPublic interest debateQuangosRSPBReduction of FeesRegulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000Regulatory CaptureRichard HendersonRobert GrahamRobin HarperRoddy FlinnRoy MartinRussells Gibson McCaffreySarah O'NeillScotland Against Crooked LawyersScots lawScottish Borders CouncilScottish Civil Justice CouncilScottish Court Service Corportate BodyScottish Elections 2011Scottish Legal Consumer ComplaintsSequestrationsShahid PervezSheriff Annella CowanSimon SanSociety of Solicitor AdvocatesSolicitor GeneralSoul and ConscienceSunday MailTaylor ReviewThe ScotsmanTods MurrayTommy SheridanTwitterUK Supreme CourtUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of ManchesterVoteWhistleblowingWildlife Crimeabusecivil legal aidcomplaintsdisability benefitsfamily lawhuman rightsleafletslegal feesleviesliarpublic service cutsracismsecret Scotlandsecret memosectarianismsmall claimsstrategic change19941997199819992001200620082010ACPOAccounts CommissionAdam IngramAdults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000Alastair BonningtonAlastair GibbAlisdair HuttonAlistair CowanAlistair Dean Law PracticeAlistair SimAllison StrachanAnderson FyfeAndrew MillarAnja AmselAnn McKechinAnne McTaggart MSPAnthony MurphyArbitrationArchy KirkwoodAuditor of the Court of SessionAustin LaffertyAustraliaBBC Radio debateBalfour and MansonBalfour and Manson LLPBanana RepublicBanco Di RomaBank chargesBen ThomsonBenefitsBentJudges.comBiggart BaillieBonus CultureBrett Wilson LLPBrodies LLPBruce de WertCadder v HMACaduceus investments LtdCalmanCalman Implemenation GroupCalum WilsonCameras in CourtsCannons Law PartnershipCare Quality CommissionCarole FordCharlesfieldCheck your solicitors recordChic BrodieChoosing an ExecutorChristmas for Crooked LawyersChristopher HalesCivil AppealsCivil Recovery UnitClementiClient ScamClient's FundsClimategateClydeside Action On AsbestosCodicilComResCommissionersCompass ChambersComplaints FormComplaints Handling ResearchConduct ComplaintsConsultation on Court FeesConsumer DirectCost Reduction ServicesCost of Time surveyCourt ClosuresCourt TranscriptsCourts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014Credit CardsCredit CrunchCriminal JusticeCross party Committee on Banking StandardsCrown ImmunityDWF Biggart BaillieDamien McBrideDavid Blair WilsonDavid GaukeDavid Hamilton KiddDavid LyonsDavid McCroneDavid MundellDavid O'HaganDavid ReidDavid Torrance SNPDavidson FraserDiary of InjusticeDickson MintoDiet of TaxationDigby BrownDonald DewarDonald FindlayDougieDouglas HaggartyDouglas SinclairDr Kate ForrestDr Kennedy GrahamDubaiDublinDuck HouseDunblaneDundas and WilsonDundee City CouncilDundee Procurator FiscalE-PetitionEast Lothian CouncilEdinburgh FringeElaine Murray MSPElectionElection 2010Esto Law LtdEthicsEuropean Civil Justice DayExemption from Court FeesExtraditionFMQ'sFacebookFelix SearsFettesgateFile NoteFinancial CrisisFinancial OmbudsmanFinancial ServicesFinancial Services Consumer PanelFiona SmithFlickrFrackingFramework Agreement for the Provision of Legal ServicesFrank MaguireGalashielsGeneral ElectionGeorge L IrvingGeorge MortonGerard DurkanGerard KellyGerry SweeneyGillian ThomsonGiovanni Di StefanoGlasgow City CouncilGlasgow Housing AssociationGlaxoSmithKlineGoldGold WreathGordon BrownGordon McMasterGordon ThomsonGraeme Pearson MSPGrampian PoliceGrant DochertyGrant ThorntonGreeceGuide for Party Litigants in ScotlandHBJ GateleyHMCSHSBCHaddon and TurnbullHamilton Bar AssociationHampden & CoHarper MacleodHasties SolicitorsHawickHedge FundHenry RobsonHolocaustHome OfficeHouses of the OireachtasHugh Tomlinson QCHuman Rights CommissionerIain McGroryIan Hamilton QCIan MacKay QCIan McGroryIan PuddickIdeal MortgagesIndependence ReferendumInheritance LawInsolvencyInterlocutorInternational Bar AssociationIraq WarJames McIntyreJames MuirJan McAlisterJayne Baxter MSPJedburgh GazetteJerseyJim MatherJoan McAlpine MSPJohn FinnieJohn McCabeJohn ParkJoseph PlattJudicial Attitude Survey 2014Judicial FactorsJudicial Interests debateJudicial Studies CommitteeJulia BatemanJulia ClarkeJury reformKPMGKathie McLean ToremarKenneth PritchardKevin McleodLady ClarkLand ReformLannigan Meechan and CoLaw Chief makes suicide jibeLaw Society ReportLaw studentsLawyer bashingLay representationLegal AdviceLegal Services (Scotland) Act 2010Legal Services BoardLegal SparkLindsaysLloyds TSBLocal GovernmentLocal Government and Communities CommitteeLocktonLondonLondon School of EconomicsLord BrodieLord Colin BoydLord David SteelLord DervairdLord DohertyLord Drummond YoungLord EmslieLord FalconerLord Fraser of CarmyllieLord KingarthLord Lester of Herne HillLord MalcolmLord PenroseLord PentlandLord RodgerLord StewartLord UistLord WheatleyLynne SimMacBeth Currie and CoMaking Justice WorkMalcolm ThomsonManifesto for 2011Margaret McDougallMark Kennedy-StewartMarshall WilsonMart Kennedy-StewartMary McDonaldMaurice Corry MSPMaurice O'CarrollMcKenzie WallaceMedia GuideMedical ReportsMendipMichael KarusMichael MooreMichael VoudouriMichelle ThomsonMillar and BryceMinisterial CodeMiss XMob RuleMoneyMoney LaunderingMortgage Rights ActMortgage mis-sellingMurmuring JudgesNHS Forth ValleyNHS OrkneyNaming and ShamingNanette MilneNatwest 3Neelie KroesNeil Findlay MSPNeil McPhersonNew Year MessageNew ZealandNew Zealand ParliamentNews of the WorldNial McCluskeyNial ScottNick CleggNigel HallNorna CrabbeNullification of FeesOffice of Public Appointments in ScotlandPaisleyParliament HallPart-Time SheriffsPartnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime ScotlandPatrick HarviePaul KirkPaul ReidPete WishartPeter PeacockPhil GalliePolice Scotland. Stephen HousePollsPress FreedomPrestwickProcurator FiscalProfessor Frank StephenProfessor John FloodProfessor Julia BlackProgressivePropertyPublic Services Reform Act (Scotland) 2010Pursuers PanelRBSRICSRegisters of ScotlandReimagine RegulationRepublic of IrelandReview of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in ScotlandReview of the costs and funding of litigation in ScotlandRick KordowskiRobert BrownRobert TaylorRobert ThomasRobertson and RossRoy Martin QCRuthven GemmellS3W-29223SCCSCCRCSLABSSPCASandy MowatScandalising the CourtSchool of LawScot's lawScott Moncrieff Dove LockhartScottish Arbitration CentreScottish CourtsScottish Elections 2016Scottish Human Rights CommissionScottish OfficeScottish Parliament QuestionsScottish Parliament websiteScottish Referendum CommissionScottish Solicitors Guarantee FundScottish Tribunals ServiceSenator Victor BoyhanShepherd and WedderburnShepperd and WedderburnSheppherd and WedderburnSheriff JA BairdSheriff Kenneth RossSheriff Kevin DrummondSheriff Principal Brian LockhartSheriff Robert DicksonShorthand notesSingle Seller surveySir Angus GrossartSir Muir RussellSir Stephen HouseSirajh KhanSocial MediaSocial Security ActSociety of Trust and Estate PractitionersSpinSt BoswellsSteven AndersonSteven GoldStewart KennedyStewart Stevenson MSPStrathclyde PoliceStuart GairStuart MacFarlaneSurveillance StateSusan BegleySusan BellTNS BMRBTavish ScottTax AvoidanceTaxationTaxpayers AllianceTemporary SheriffsTerrorThe Edinburgh CrownThe GuardianThe HeraldThe Scotsman Live Legal DebateTheresa MayThomson ReviewTom MinogueTony KellyTrading StandardsTricia Walsh SmithTurkeyTurnbull Simpson and SturrockTweetingUK Bill of RightsUK GovernmentUNITEUS Supreme CourtVale of Leven Monitoring GroupValerie PennyVested InterestsVexatious LitigantVince CableVirgin IslandsVivienne MuirVulnerable ClientsWalter RuarkWalter SempleWeir GroupWilliam BeckWilliam ChisholmWilliam MacreathWilliam MurninWilliam RennieWillian BurnsWillie CoffeyWorld Bar Conference 2016Your FreedomZambiaadmissions committeeadversarial approachadvice desertapproved regulatorblock feesbooze culturebribescivil damages actionsclient Hcomcommitteescomplaints decisionsconstitutionconsumer rightscontaminated blood productscorruptioncostsculture of greeddemocracy livedevolutiondisability rightse petitionselderlyfalse compensation figuresfinefit upguiltyhandling a willin-house solicitorsjob advertlaw firmslegal challengelegal costslevylevy Mcraemedia coverage advicememorandum of understandingmortgage allowancempsoversightpower of attorneyprobateprofitsreferral feesremunerationresignationsalariessecondary schoolssmeargatesolicitors to avoidspending reviewsponsorshipstandards Law Society of Scotlandstandards consultationsuicidesthefttranscriptsvictims of crimevoting rights for solicitorswiped records of crooked lawyersA Diary of Injustice in ScotlandIndependent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants &amp; Scotland&#39;s legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics &amp; in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)Blogger1007125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-4934291643531991247Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:35:00 +00002016-11-17T17:35:12.287+00:00Judicial Complaints ReviewerJudiciary of ScotlandLord CarlowayLord GillPetitions Committeeregister of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish GovernmentScottish ParliamentJUDICIAL REGISTER: Evidence lodged by Judicial Investigators, campaigners, judges & journalists in four year Holyrood probe on judges’ interests - points to increased public awareness of judiciary, expectation of transparency in court<p align="justify"><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><em><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bQWMsISAgfk/VthYTIyzSAI/AAAAAAAACPM/Y3km7b5gnOM/s400-Ic42/LP%252520Carloway%252520Parliament.jpg" width="340" align="left" height="227"></a></em></a><em>Judicial register required for openness in court. </em><strong>EVIDENCE</strong> accumulated as a result of a four year probe by the Scottish Parliament<em> </em>on proposals to require judges to register their interests - points to the inescapable conclusion there is a need for a fully published and publicly available register of interests for the judiciary.</p><p align="justify">The overall impression reached by many involved in the debate around judicial interests is that creating such a register with full declarations by judges will enhance public trust in judges, and bring the judiciary into line with transparency rules which apply to all other branches of Government.</p><p align="justify">The proposal to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary - <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/declare-your-interests-mlords-scottish.html"><strong><u>Public Petitions Committee in January 2013</u></strong></a> – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world. </p><p align="justify">A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014</u></strong></a> - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties. </p><p align="justify">A full history, list of evidence, Parliamentary hearings and submissions from all sides of the debate including campaigners, legal academics, both of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewers, law related organisations, the Scottish Government and Scotland’s top judges in relation to <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> is published for readers and those with an interest in how the judiciary operate, below: <p align="justify"><strong>Date Petition Lodged: </strong>07 December 2012 <p align="justify"><strong>Petition aim:</strong> Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill (as is currently being considered in New Zealand's Parliament) or amend present legislation to require all members of the Judiciary in Scotland to submit their interests &amp; hospitality received to a publicly available Register of Interests. <ul><li><div align="justify"><a title="Read Petition background information" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dzk1LTV6bm5ORTg/"><strong>Read Petition background information</strong></a></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="Previous action taken to resolve issue" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7c3AwV0l4YXR2OVk/"><strong>Previous action taken to resolve issue</strong></a></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="Click here for the petition PDF" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QnBKZHhhd0JOODA/"><strong>Click here for the petition PDF</strong></a></div></li></ul><p align="justify"><strong>Petition History:</strong> <ul><li><div align="justify"><a title="SPICe Briefing" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7V1RkdmNRTTAwN3M/"><strong>SPICe Briefing</strong></a></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="SPICe Briefing on the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill - updated 13 August 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dWVLN2tCYTJEMlE/"><strong>SPICe Briefing on the New Zealand Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill - updated 13 August 2013</strong></a></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="SPICe Briefing on Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7NEwtbGh3eG0tZkU/"><strong>SPICe Briefing on Section 23(7) of the Scotland Act 1998</strong></a></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="Written Questions for PE1458" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7SHM3TFpaaWY2X3M/"><strong>Written Questions for PE1458</strong></a></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="Clerk's notes from informal meeting with Lord Gill" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7R0F6cGYxQVhsaTA/"><strong>Clerk's notes from informal meeting with Lord Gill</strong></a></div></li></ul><p align="justify">Summary: <p align="justify">8 January 2013: The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Lord President, the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland. <a title="DECLARE YOUR INTERESTS M&rsquo;LORDS : Scottish Parliament seek views on Public Petition calling for a Register of Interests of Scotland&rsquo;s wealthy Judges &amp; Sheriffs" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/declare-your-interests-mlords-scottish.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Declare your interests M'Lords</strong></a> <p align="justify">5 March 2013: The Committee agreed to invite the Lord President to give evidence at a future meeting and seek further information on the proposed New Zealand legislation. <a title="&lsquo;Methinks the Lord President doth protest too much&rsquo; : Top Judge summoned to Petitions Committee over objections to Register of Interests for Scotland&rsquo;s Judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/03/methinks-lord-president-doth-protest.html"><strong>Link to Media report - ‘Methinks the Lord President doth protest too much’</strong></a> <p align="justify">16 April 2013: The Committee agreed to write again to the Lord President and seek views from the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.<strong> </strong><a title="What is there to hide ? : A Register of Judicial Interests will bring much needed transparency &amp; accountability to Scots Judiciary too used to life behind closed doors" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-there-to-hide-register-of.html"><strong>Link to Media report - What is there to hide?</strong></a><strong> </strong><ul><li><div align="justify"><a title="Letter from the Convener to the Lord President of 18 April 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7UmJJRTRBcU4weVE/"><strong>Letter from the Convener to the Lord President of 18 April 2013</strong></a></div></li></ul><p align="justify">25 June 2013: The Committee agreed to invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence at a future meeting. The Committee also agreed to write to Dr Kennedy Graham MP, New Zealand Parliament. <a title="Anti-transparency top judge 'should reconsider his position on Scotland Act' as MSPs invite Judicial Investigator to give evidence on register of judicial interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/07/anti-transparency-top-judge-should.html"><strong>Link to Media report - top judge 'should reconsider his position on Scotland Act'</strong></a> <p align="justify">17 September 2013: The Committee took evidence from Moi Ali, Judicial Complaints Reviewer. The Committee agreed to write to Dr Kennedy Graham MP, New Zealand Parliament, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Court Service and the Scottish Government. The Committee also agreed to consider the debate that took place during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 on section 23. <a title="Evidence from Scotland&rsquo;s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to Public Petitions Committee on Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland&rsquo;s Judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/09/evidence-from-scotlands-judicial.html"><strong>Link to Media report - evidence of Moi Ali, Judicial Complaints Reviewer</strong></a> <p align="center"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXNetOm2ow"><strong><u>JCR Moi Ali gives evidence to Scottish Parliament on a proposed Register of Judicial Interests</u></strong></a> <p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1fXNetOm2ow?rel=0" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe><p align="justify">26 November 2013: The Committee agreed to defer future consideration of the petition until after the meeting between the Convener, Deputy Convener and the Lord President.<strong> </strong><a title="Link to Official Report 26 November 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Z1duUTd4Y2lNOTQ/"><strong>Link to Official Report 26 November 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong><p align="justify">28 January 2014: The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the petition pending receipt of a letter from the Lord President. <a title="PRIVATE PARLY: Questions raised of what really took place in private meeting between Scotland&rsquo;s top judge &amp; two MSPs over judicial interests transparency register petition" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/01/private-parly-questions-raised-of-what.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Private Parly</strong></a> </p><p align="justify">4 March 2014: The Committee agreed to seek time in the Chamber for a debate on the petition. The Committee also agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government. <a title="RECUSE ME NOT: Concession from Scotland&rsquo;s top judge on recusals is &ldquo;of limited value&rdquo; says Judicial Complaints Reviewer as MSPs seek Register of Judicial Interests debate in Holyrood main chamber" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/03/recuse-me-not-concession-from-scotlands.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Recuse me not</strong></a> <p align="justify">6 May 2014: The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government. <a title="SPs seek detailed views from &lsquo;scripted&rsquo; Top Judge &amp; Justice Secretary as Holyrood Committee move for full Parliament debate on Register of Judicial Interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/05/msps-seek-detailed-views-from-scripted.html"><strong>Link to Media report - MSPs seek views from scripted top judge</strong></a><strong> </strong><p align="justify">9 October 2014: The Committee held a debate in the Chamber on the subject of the petition. <a title="DEBATING THE JUDGES: Cross party support for proposal seeking a register of interests for members of Scotland&rsquo;s Judiciary as Scottish Parliament holds first ever debate on judicial accountability &amp; transparency" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Debating the judges - full debate at Holyrood, video &amp; official report</strong></a> <p align="justify">28 October 2014: The Committee agreed to write to the Lord President and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer. The Committee also agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to give evidence at a future meeting. <a title="SECRETARY FOR THE JUDGE: MSPs call in Justice Secretary MacAskill to face questions on proposal to create a register of interests for Scotland's judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/secretary-for-judge-msps-call-in.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Secretary for the judge</strong></a> <p align="justify">9 December 2014: The Committee took evidence from Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and Kay McCorquodale, Civil Law and Legal Systems Division, Scottish Government. The Committee agreed to consider the petition again in the new year to reflect on the evidence received today, the annual report of the previous Judicial Complaints Reviewer and the new rules and guidance to be published by the Lord President. The Committee also agreed to write to the new Judicial Complaints Reviewer. <a title="TOO MANY SECRETS: Legal Affairs Minister &lsquo;anti-transparency&rsquo; evidence to MSPs a &lsquo;poor substitute for top judge&rsquo; as Scottish Parliament Petitions Committee consider next move on proposal to create a register of interests for judges" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/12/too-many-secrets-legal-affairs-minister.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Too many secrets</strong></a> <p align="justify">12 May 2015: The Committee agreed to invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer to give evidence at a future meeting.<strong> </strong><a title="YOU RAN, M&rsquo;LORD: Departing top judge gets a wigging for protecting vested interests as Holryood MSPs call in Judicial Complaints Reviewer on register of interests for judges probe" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/05/you-ran-mlord-departing-top-judge-gets.html"><strong>Link to Media report - You ran M'Lord</strong></a> <p align="justify">23 June 2015: The Committee took evidence from Gillian Thompson OBE, Judicial Complaints Reviewer. The Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Lord Gill and, when appointed, the new Lord President. <a title="REGISTER, M&rsquo;LORD: Former top judge Brian Gill called to Scottish Parliament as Judicial watchdog tells MSPs - Judges should declare their interests in public register" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/08/register-mlord-former-top-judge-brian.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Register, M'Lord</strong></a> <p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Ue4XjCMeE"><strong><u>JCR Gillian Thompson OBE evidence to Scottish Parliament: Register of Interests for Judges Petition PE1458 Scottish Parliament 23 June 2015</u></strong></a> <p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C_Ue4XjCMeE?rel=0" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe><p align="justify">10 November 2015: The Committee took evidence from Rt Hon Lord Gill, former Lord President of the Court of Session. The Committee agreed to reflect on the evidence heard at a future meeting. <a title="JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges&rsquo; secret wealth &amp; interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill&rsquo;s evidence as &ldquo;passive aggression&rdquo;" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Judge Another Day</strong></a><p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMlBc9XNxrc"><strong><u>Evidence of Lord Gill before the Scottish Parliament 10 November 2015</u></strong></a><p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GMlBc9XNxrc?rel=0" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe><p align="justify">1 December 2015: The Committee agreed to write to the new Lord President once appointed. <a title="EVIDENCE, M&rsquo;LORD: Scotland&rsquo;s next top judge to be asked to give evidence in Scottish Parliament&rsquo;s probe on secretive world of undeclared judicial wealth, interests &amp; judges' links to big business" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/12/evidence-mlord-scotlands-next-top-judge.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Evidence, M'Lord</strong></a> <p align="justify">23 February 2016: The Committee agreed to include the petition in its legacy paper for consideration by the Session 5 Public Petitions Committee. In doing so, the Committee agreed to write to Professor Alan Paterson, University of Strathclyde. <a title="DECLARE IT, M&rsquo;LORD: MSPs seek further evidence on proposals to create register of judges&rsquo; interests, Lord President to be invited to face Holyrood Committee after May 2016 elections" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/03/declare-it-mlord-msps-seek-further.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Declare it, M'Lord</strong></a> <p align="justify">29 September 2016: The Committee agreed to invite the Lord President and Professor Alan Paterson to give oral evidence at a future meeting. <a title="QUESTION TIME, M&rsquo;LORD: Top judge Lord Carloway to face MSPs on his opposition to judicial transparency &amp; proposal to create a register of judges&rsquo; interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/question-time-mlord-top-judge-lord.html"><strong>Link to Media report - Question Time, M'Lord</strong></a> <p align="justify">Click on each link to view written Submissions to the Scottish Parliament: <ul><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/A: Law Society of Scotland Letter of 31 January 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Z2hKcGZRUVpIRzA/"><strong>PE1458/A: Law Society of Scotland Letter of 31 January 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/B: Lord President Letter of 5 February 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VTNpaHRkblhSbFk/"><strong>PE1458/B: Lord President Letter of 5 February 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/C: Scottish Government Letter of 11 February 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WVk5dFR0Z283Rjg/"><strong>PE1458/C: Scottish Government Letter of 11 February 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/D: Petitioner Letter of 22 February 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7SFRfcXE5RUtRTGs/"><strong>PE1458/D: Petitioner Letter of 22 February 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/E: Lord President Letter of 2 April 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ODdaZTJ1Y0YzVHM/"><strong>PE1458/E: Lord President Letter of 2 April 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/F: Petitioner Letter of 10 April 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7MV9rZC1HQldPVDQ/"><strong>PE1458/F: Petitioner Letter of 10 April 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/G: Stuart Hunt Letter of 30 April 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WjhTaE1RUWQ1d1U/"><strong>PE1458/G: Stuart Hunt Letter of 30 April 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/H: Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland Letter of 16 May 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7LXNuYTBZaWhHbWc/"><strong>PE1458/H: Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland Letter of 16 May 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/I: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 17 May 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ZzNkem9Dcm5Gb3M/"><strong>PE1458/I: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 17 May 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/J: Lord President Letter of 28 May 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7TG1QYVpVb0YzOGc/"><strong>PE1458/J: Lord President Letter of 28 May 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/K: Petitioner Letter of 11 June 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WS1HUEd0aFUxa1U/"><strong>PE1458/K: Petitioner Letter of 11 June 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/L: Petitioner Letter of 21 June 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7RmxCR2xOaVR3REk/"><strong>PE1458/L: Petitioner Letter of 21 June 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/M: William Beck Letter of 17 July 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7MDB0dmNwMERHNG8/"><strong>PE1458/M: William Beck Letter of 17 July 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/N: Petitioner Letter of 13 September 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7V1ZKamtxUnMtM0U/"><strong>PE1458/N: Petitioner Letter of 13 September 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/O: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 9 October 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VVNMUkNGa0FIdFE/"><strong>PE1458/O: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 9 October 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/P: Dr Kennedy Graham MP Email of 15 October 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7enVSNmpmVmtDMzg/"><strong>PE1458/P: Dr Kennedy Graham MP Email of 15 October 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/Q: Scottish Court Service Letter of 23 October 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7bjJja0l6Mms0blk/"><strong>PE1458/Q: Scottish Court Service Letter of 23 October 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/R: Scottish Government Letter of 31 October 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7c0U5Skp1ZkRyOUk/"><strong>PE1458/R: Scottish Government Letter of 31 October 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/S: Petitioner Letter of 12 November 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7TmEwUnNRZGhJZG8/"><strong>PE1458/S: Petitioner Letter of 12 November 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/T: Petitioner Letter of 14 November 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7TmN2RDdESGdYRVk/"><strong>PE1458/T: Petitioner Letter of 14 November 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/U: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Email of 20 November 2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7RG1NMWZNY2xJQkE/"><strong>PE1458/U: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Email of 20 November 2013</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/V: Petitioner Letter of 5 February 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ODJLNDZ6a3hhbXc/"><strong>PE1458/V: Petitioner Letter of 5 February 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/W: Lord President Letter of 21 February 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7MG9ua0ZMbTZpRTg/"><strong>PE1458/W: Lord President Letter of 21 February 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/X: Petitioner Letter of 27 February 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7M0dMLWFKekxiNVk/"><strong>PE1458/X: Petitioner Letter of 27 February 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/Y: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 28 February 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7YTgtX254ZlcxazA/"><strong>PE1458/Y: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 28 February 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/Z: Lord President Letter of 1 April 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OEpWalNqRGt4T0E/"><strong>PE1458/Z: Lord President Letter of 1 April 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/AA: Scottish Government Letter of 22 April 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7NmFFaUNYcF8yRVk/"><strong>PE1458/AA: Scottish Government Letter of 22 April 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/BB: Petitioner Letter of 24 April 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ZmpnTGliQnY0V00/"><strong>PE1458/BB: Petitioner Letter of 24 April 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/CC: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 23 April 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OXlSMFFqWFBweWs/"><strong>PE1458/CC: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 23 April 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/DD: Petitioner Letter of 28 April 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QzhBLVJBS1JaS2M/"><strong>PE1458/DD: Petitioner Letter of 28 April 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/EE: Scottish Government Letter of 4 June 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7aF92YnlwVWtUcGM/"><strong>PE1458/EE: Scottish Government Letter of 4 June 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/FF: Lord President Letter of 5 June 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VEpKZGltOENIajg/"><strong>PE1458/FF: Lord President Letter of 5 June 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/GG: Petitioner Letter and Supplementary Submission of 23 July 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Q0pySWxHRGw4Q3M/"><strong>PE1458/GG: Petitioner Letter and Supplementary Submission of 23 July 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/HH: Petitioner Letter of 3 October 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7U0t0YUxNR0lxMk0/"><strong>PE1458/HH: Petitioner Letter of 3 October 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/II: Petitioner Letter of 21 October 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7M2lNYXhUOW1MTWM/"><strong>PE1458/II: Petitioner Letter of 21 October 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/JJ: Lord President Letter of 21 November 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VVJPNjRoZ25Ib00/"><strong>PE1458/JJ: Lord President Letter of 21 November 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/KK: Petitioner Letter of 3 December 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dkJ0cm1OakExa1U/"><strong>PE1458/KK: Petitioner Letter of 3 December 2014</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/LL: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 12 January 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7c1QxdlR3VXVEZzQ/"><strong>PE1458/LL: Judicial Complaints Reviewer Letter of 12 January 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/MM: Lord President Letter of 1 April 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dkI4RkZiMlpnXzQ/"><strong>PE1458/MM: Lord President Letter of 1 April 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/NN: First Minister Letter of 30 March 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VWJOaGdTaFBaR0U/"><strong>PE1458/NN: First Minister Letter of 30 March 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/OO: Petitioner Letter of 28 April 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7bjl6eG9paFRudnM/"><strong>PE1458/OO: Petitioner Letter of 28 April 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/PP: Petitioner Letter of 29 April 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Z0dBYkhSbWpRMTA/"><strong>PE1458/PP: Petitioner Letter of 29 April 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/QQ: Petitioner Letter of 5 May 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7LW5fN1ktazF4bjA/"><strong>PE1458/QQ: Petitioner Letter of 5 May 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/RR: Petitioner Letter of 17 June 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ajlnNmN6N0tlcHM/"><strong>PE1458/RR: Petitioner Letter of 17 June 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/SS: Scottish Government Letter of 31 July 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7M0R2S2VjWjB3b1E/"><strong>PE1458/SS: Scottish Government Letter of 31 July 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/TT: Petitioner Letter of 23 October 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VzNQY296YVpiOU0/"><strong>PE1458/TT: Petitioner Letter of 23 October 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/UU: Petitioner Letter of 23 November 2015" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7aUNPZmQxZktnc3M/"><strong>PE1458/UU: Petitioner Letter of 23 November 2015</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/VV: Lord President Letter of 8 February 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VVRyN0tUSjdWZWc/"><strong>PE1458/VV: Lord President Letter of 8 February 2016</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/WW: Petitioner Letter of 17 February 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7YUVRNlpVdmtuN2M/"><strong>PE1458/WW: Petitioner Letter of 17 February 2016</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/XX: Professor Alan Paterson Letter of 10 May 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VC1GMjc5YV85Y28/"><strong>PE1458/XX: Professor Alan Paterson Letter of 10 May 2016</strong></a><strong> </strong></div><li><div align="justify"><a title="PE1458/YY: Submission by Peter Cherbi of 19 September 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7TFBkVTFQOUJLNGc/"><strong>PE1458/YY: Submission by Peter Cherbi of 19 September 2016</strong></a></div></li></ul><p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a>. </p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/judicial-register-evidence-lodged-by.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-349772691040540833Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:41:00 +00002016-11-11T11:41:45.207+00:00Judiciary of ScotlandLord CarlowayLord GillPetition 1458register of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish ParliamentTransparencyJUDICIAL REGISTER: Figures reveal Scotland’s judges received £471million since 2008 financial crash, benefit from extra £2billion on courts & legal aid - yet declare no wealth, assets or interests<p align="justify"><em><a title="A register of interests for Scotland's judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dk16SWxUVWJQZEk" width="358" align="left" height="539"></a>Transparency register now essential for judges. </em><strong>THEY HAVE</strong> the power to strike down legislation from our elected <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/"><strong><u>Scottish Parliament</u></strong></a>, enact <a title="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/new-rules" href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/new-rules"><strong><u>their own versions of the law with Acts of Sederunt</u></strong></a>, suspend your liberty, and dodge questions on their activities - yet figures reveal <a title="THE JUDICIAL SERVICE: How Scotland&rsquo;s secretive judicial elite peddle their influence in jurisdictions around the world, and where judges go - corporate vested interests follow" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-judicial-service-how-scotlands.html"><strong><u>Scotland’s secretive judicial elite</u></strong></a><u></u> who control our courts – have received a staggering <strong>£471 million</strong> of public cash for salaries and judicial related ‘activities’ since the financial crash of 2008.</p><p align="justify">Judges on up to £230K a year - some holding judicial posts for well over twenty years, have also directly benefited from a massive <strong>£885 million</strong> of public cash thrown at Scotland's courts since 2008 - including a <strong>£58 million</strong> taxpayer funded refit of <a title="Parliament House" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><strong><u>Parliament House</u></strong></a> – the headquarters of Scotland's current Lord President &amp; Lord Justice General - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">And, don’t forget the staggering <a title="LEGAL BILLIONS: Law Society hits out at legal aid cuts as Scottish Legal Aid Board reveal lawyers received &pound;138.6m public cash in 2014-15, making &pound;1.2bn since 2008 financial crash" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/12/legal-billions-law-society-hits-out-at.html"><strong><u>£1.207 billion of legal aid</u></strong></a> – yet another public cash subsidy for the legal profession to prop up our creaking, expensive and exclusive billion pound courts who close their doors as soon as they hear the word “transparency”.</p><p align="justify">Yet - the collection of Senators of the Court of Session, temporary judges, sheriffs of varying titles, tribunal &amp; land court judges – (around 265 in number) and an army of up to 450 justices of the peace - declare not one single interest, connection, item of wealth, property value, or paid outside work, outside of <a title="INTERESTS AMISS, M&rsquo;LORD: Property, paid work, links to big business &amp; professions not included in judges&rsquo; declarations on Courts &amp; Tribunals Service Board register" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/interests-amiss-mlord-property-paid.html"><strong><u>revelations in the media of judges' links to big banks &amp; dodgy businesses contained in the SCTS Board register</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">There is no other group in society who are allowed such a privilege of secrecy - while benefiting directly from billions of pounds in public cash.</p><p align="justify">The weak, disabled and most vulnerable in society are strip searched and harassed day &amp; night, whenever they dare ask for help.</p><p align="justify">Even an elected councillor, msp and all other public officials must tally up their stationery costs and claims for rubber bands.</p><p align="justify">Yet there are no questions, requirements of transparency or accountability for the judiciary - who <a title="LORD JET SET: Scotland&rsquo;s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/lord-jet-set-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html"><strong><u>jet set at-will around the world on taxpayers cash</u></strong></a>, operate <a title="THE JUDICIAL SERVICE: How Scotland&rsquo;s secretive judicial elite peddle their influence in jurisdictions around the world, and where judges go - corporate vested interests follow" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-judicial-service-how-scotlands.html"><strong><u>a judicial version of a diplomatic service</u></strong></a> and rake in cash for speeches, conference attendance, and legal work - without fear of having to declare one single item of their wealth, connections to despots, the rich &amp; powerful and links to big business - in public.</p><p align="justify">By any stretch of the imagination, this scenario, is shocking.</p><p align="justify">The figures - sourced from the Scottish budget on judicial salaries, travel, junkets, ‘training’ and various enterprises operated by the Judicial Office for Scotland falling under the term “Courts Group” to various related courts &amp; tribunal support entities- reveal the <strong>total spend on Scotland’s judiciary since 2008 stands at £470.6m</strong>. </p><p align="justify">Budget spend on judiciary: 2007-2008: £41.8m, 2008-2009: £44.3m, 2009-2010: £46.3m, 2010-2011: £51.1m, 2011-2012: £50.0m,2012-2013: £52.4m, 2013-2014:£52.1m,2014-2015: £51.6m, 2015-2016: £40.5m (missing £11.1 switched to SCTS budget), 2016-2017: £40.5m&nbsp; (missing £11.1 plus - switched to SCTS budget)</p><p align="justify">Courts Group had overall responsibility for financing the cost of the Judiciary, including Scottish Government contribution to the superannuation costs of the judiciary, for the fees to part-time judiciary, for the running costs of a number of small departments and other judicial expenses (training and travel etc).</p><p align="justify">Judicial salaries are defined as non-voted spending which is met from the Scottish Consolidated Fund but is also part of the Departmental spending limit.</p><p align="justify">Courts group was renamed Courts, Judiciary and Scottish Tribunals Service during 2012. In the latest Scottish Government 2016-2017 budget, the designation defining judicial costs is tagged as “Judiciary”.</p><p align="justify">Figures sourced from the Scottish Budget reveal the <strong>total spend on </strong><a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><u><strong>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</strong></u></a><strong> </strong>(SCTS) <strong>since 2008</strong>&nbsp;<strong>stands at £884.7m </strong>with the added-in £58m for the Parliament House refit. </p><p align="justify">Budget spend on courts: 2007-2008: £79.4m, 2008-2009: £81.3m, 2009-2010: £94.7m, 2010-2011: £93.5m, 2011-2012: £79.9m, 2012-2013: £77.0m, 2013-2014: £72.3m, 2014-2015: £72.3m,2015-2016: £87.4m (includes missing £11.1m from courts group responsible for Judiciary), 2016-2017: £88.9m (includes missing £11.1m plus - from courts group responsible for Judiciary).</p><p align="justify">As you read these facts and figures, remember – this is about how public cash to the tune of half a billion pounds is spent by a group of the most powerful people in the land - who resist declaring their interests, how the judiciary operate, create umbrella institutions without accountability and outwith the scope of Freedom of Information laws, make policy on their own and operate without any oversight.</p><p align="justify">The existing lack of judicial transparency and accountability allows this to continue, unchecked and unchallenged.</p><p align="justify">There is a proposal to create a new layer of transparency and accountability to the judiciary as exists in all other areas of public life.</p><p align="justify">In an effort to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary - <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> - first debated at the Scottish Parliament’s <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/declare-your-interests-mlords-scottish.html"><strong><u>Public Petitions Committee in January 2013</u></strong></a> – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world. </p><p align="justify">A full debate on the proposal to require judges to declare their interests was held <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014</u></strong></a> - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties. <p align="justify">The proposal to create a register of interests for Scotland’s judges’ is also backed by the highly talented individuals who were appointed to provide oversight of judicial complaints – Scotland’s first <a href="http://judicialcomplaintsreviewer.org.uk/"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer</u></strong></a> (JCR) – Moi Ali, and the current JCR – Gillian Thompson OBE. <p align="justify">The full transcript of evidence from former JCR Moi Ali to the Scottish Parliament during her term as Judicial Complaints Reviewer can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/09/evidence-from-scotlands-judicial.html"><strong><u>Evidence from Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to Public Petitions Committee on Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary</u></strong></a>, video footage of the hearing can be viewed here:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXNetOm2ow"><strong><u>JCR Moi Ali gives evidence to Scottish Parliament on a proposed Register of Judicial Interests</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Read the full report &amp; transcript of JCR Gillian Thompson’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee here: <a title="REGISTER, M&rsquo;LORD: Former top judge Brian Gill called to Scottish Parliament as Judicial watchdog tells MSPs - Judges should declare their interests in public register" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/08/register-mlord-former-top-judge-brian.html"><strong><u>REGISTER, M’LORD: Former top judge Brian Gill called to Scottish Parliament as Judicial watchdog tells MSPs - Judges should declare their interests in public register</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify"><strong>JUDICIAL REGISTER: What interests are currently declared by Scottish judges?</strong> <p align="justify">The latest<strong>&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7a0ZnbzhpQ3g0c1E/"><u><strong>declarations by a select few powerful judges</strong></u></a> who control the running of Scotland’s Courts – is more revealing in what is missing from the limited disclosures in the 2016 annual report of <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS). <p align="justify">Ruling over our courts in their ermine robes - in some cases decades longer than any Prime Minister could hope to remain in office – the handful of judicial declarations after years on the bench and millions in taxpayers cash - are even less than newly minted msps cobble together in their first few weeks at Holyrood. <p align="justify">Decades of near £200K taxpayer funded salaries produce singular declarations for a handful of judges, while the other 700 members of Scotland’s judiciary declare not one single item. <p align="justify">This year, Scotland’s current top judge, the Lord President &amp; Lord Justice General - Lord Carloway – (real name Colin Sutherland), has but one declaration (<strong>Trustee, Scottish Arts Club</strong>) – dwarfing the vast listing of directorships &amp; positions of his predecessor – Lord Brian Gill. <p align="justify"><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> (62) was appointed to the Court of Session since 2000. Sixteen years later, and now in the top job – his salary is currently listed in the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dmZ0d2R3dVdEeFk/"><strong><u>UK Government guidance on judicial salaries as of 1 April 2016</u></strong></a> as £222,862.00. <p align="justify">Another judicial member of the SCTS Board - <strong></strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lady%20Smith"><strong><u>Lady Smith</u></strong></a> (61) was appointed to the Court of Session in 2001. Fifteen years later, her salary as a judge of the inner house of the Court of Session is listed by the UK Government as £204, 695.00. <p align="justify"><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> (74) - appointed to the Court of Session in 1994, ‘retired’ from his judicial tenure in Scotland as Lord President 21 years later in June 2015 - on a salary of £220,665.00. <p align="justify">The full list of declarations for the few judges who declare ‘some’ of their interests are as follows: <p align="justify"><strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7a0ZnbzhpQ3g0c1E/"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7czhQaG1JenIxek0" width="300" align="left" height="414"></a>Rt. Hon. Lord Gill: </strong>(from 1 April to 31 May 2015) <strong>Director of Scottish Redundant Churches Trust, a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland (SC162884), Director of the Royal School of Church Music, a company limited by guarantee registered in England (Reg'd No 250031), President of the Royal Society for Home Relief to Incurable, Edinburgh, Trustee of the Columba Trust: a trust for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Endowment Trust: a trust for the benefit of RCS and its students, Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Trust: a trust for the benefit of the RCS and its students, Trustee of the Royal School of Church Music: a registered charity for the promotion of church music in the Christian Churches (Reg No 312828) Vice President of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, Chairman of Council, Royal School of Church Music</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Rt. Hon. Lord Carloway: Trustee, Scottish Arts Club</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Rt. Hon. Lady Smith:&nbsp; Chair and Trustee - Royal Scottish National Orchestra Foundation, President and Trustee - Friends of the Music of St Giles Cathedral, Honorary Bencher - Gray's Inn</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Principal Duncan Murray: Commissioner, Northern Lighthouse Board, Trustee Kibble Education and Care Centre</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Iona McDonald: Deputy Lieutenant for Ayrshire and Arran, Partner in property rental firm</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff A Grant McCulloch: Chair West Fife Education Trust, Chair Relationship Scotland - Couple Counselling Fife, Committee Member Cammo Residents Association, Chair - Discipline Committee ICAS</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Johan Findlay JP OBE Honorary Sheriff Justice of the Peace</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Dr Joseph Morrow QC: Lord Lyon King of Arms, Member of Judicial Council, Trustee, Munday Trust, Dundee Trustee, Kidney Trust, Dundee Trustee, Tealing Community Hall Legal Assessor, South Episcopal Church President, Society of Messengers at Arms President, Scottish Genealogical Society Patron, Scottish Family History Society </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Dr Kirsty J Hood QC: Self Employed Advocate Regular ad hoc employment with the University of Edinburgh – delivering seminars on one of the LLB courses, Regular ad hoc employment with the University of Glasgow - delivering lectures/seminars on one of the LLB courses, Contributor of updates to “Scottish Lawyers Factbook” (W Green. Publishers), Clerk of Faculty - Faculty of Advocates (non-remunerated) Member of the Scottish Committee of Franco-British Lawyers Society (non- remunerated)</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Simon J D Catto: Member Gateley (Scotland) LLP: Head of Litigation, Member of Cornerstone Exchange LLP, Member of Cornerstone Exchange No2 LLP</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Professor R Hugh MacDougall: None Eriska Trust, Cunningham Trust, Cross Trust, St Columba’s Hospice, Visiting Professor University of Edinburgh</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Joe Al-Gharabally: Ernst &amp; Young</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Anthony McGrath: (from 1 April 2015 to 31 December 2015) Saltire Taverns Ltd, Consultation and mentoring assignment with Cantrell &amp; Cochrane PLC. This includes sitting on the commercial Board of a subsidiary called The Shepton Mallet Cider Mill based in Somerset.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Col. David McIlroy: (from 1 January 2016) Independent Prison Monitor</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Eric McQueen: Member of the Scottish Civil Justice Council</strong> <p align="justify">In August this year, DOI reported on the shareholdings of members of the same SCTS Board, in an article here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/still-banking-mlords-judicial-quango-in.html"><strong><u>STILL BANKING, M’LORDS: Judicial quango in charge of Scotland’s Courts &amp; Tribunals remains mired in financial links to Banks, investment funds, insurance, property &amp; corporate vested interests</u></strong></a> <p align="justify">The current <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Qi1SZG41OUh1TG8/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board Register of Shareholdings</u></strong></a> reveals the following declarations of shareholdings: <p align="justify"><strong>Lord President - Rt Hon Lord Carloway: None<br>Lord Justice Clerk - Rt Hon Lady Dorrian: None<br>President of Scottish Tribunals - Rt Hon Lady Smith: Artemis Fund Managers, Barclays, Blackrock AM, Brown Advisory, Goldman Sachs, Global Access, Henderson Investment, Ishares PLC, JP Morgan, Lazard Fund Managers, Pimco Global, Vanguard Funds PLC, Fundrock Management CO Gsquaretrix.<br>Sheriff Principal Duncan L Murray: None<br>Sheriff Iona McDonald: None<br>Sheriff A Grant McCulloch: None <br>Johan Findlay OBE JP: Aviva, Vodaphone, Santander, Unilever, Norwich Union, Legal &amp; General, Fidelity Funds Network, Lloyds Banking Group, Thus Group, HBOS, Trafficmaster, Standard Life.<br>Dr Joseph Morrow QC: None<br>Lord President – Rt Hon Lord Gill (note: Lord Gill retired on 31 May 2015 and was succeed by Lord Carloway). :Henderson UK Growth Fund Retail Class Acc, Newton Global Equity Fund, Aviva Investors UK Equity Fund, Scottish Widows UK Growth Sub-Fund, HSBC Balanced Fund (Retail Acc), Royal Mail Plc, TSB Group Plc, Urban and Civil Plc, Vestry Court Ltd.</strong></p><p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a>. http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/judicial-register-figures-reveal.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)64tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-6516766525161933134Thu, 10 Nov 2016 13:51:00 +00002016-11-10T13:53:27.091+00:00consumer protectioncostsLaw Society of Scotlandlegal costsLegal OmbudsmanScottish Legal Complaints Commissionself regulationSolicitors Regulation AuthorityLEGAL COSTS: Ask your solicitor ten questions about costs before your legal expenses run up thousands in unnecessary work & bills – or result in your lawyer taking your home & savings to pay for it<p align="justify"><em><a title="Ten questions to ask your lawyer about costs" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7U2FKNDVxT3Y5NFk/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QlF2b3BCTkJIU28" width="358" align="left" height="504"></a>Questions to ask your solicitor – walk if you don't like the replies</em>. <strong>IN SCOTLAND</strong>, there are few, if any non lawyer controlled sources of advice to legal services consumers on how to manage client relationships with solicitors, how to control legal costs, and what to do when something goes wrong and your lawyer rips you off.</p><p align="justify">Client protection - is a myth. Given three decades of evidence that thousands of clients have been ripped off every year by their once trusted solicitors, the only people who believe a complaints system run by lawyers, managed by lawyers and protected by lawyers -&nbsp; are fantasists, and the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">There are no background record checks available on Scottish solicitors, and the only ‘help’ on offer to clients when their relationship with their solicitor breaks down – is provided by the pro-lawyer <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC)</u></strong></a>, a regulator backed by the Law Society of Scotland, staffed by members of the Law Society of Scotland. You get the picture.</p><p align="justify">However, in England &amp; Wales, the landscape is a little more consumer friendly, with the <strong></strong><a href="http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk"><strong><u>Legal Ombudsman</u></strong></a> (LeO) and <a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>Solicitors Regulation Authority</u></strong></a> (SRA) providing a more independent form of advice and help to consumers.</p><p align="justify">The Solicitors Regulation Authority also publish complaints and regulatory data on solicitors and law firms – a must have service for anyone considering using a solicitor which does not currently exist in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">As things currently stand in Scotland – if you are unable to check up on your solicitor’s regulatory history via an independent source, the best advice is to walk away - or what happens next is your own fault. </p><p align="justify">Self regulation by lawyers, pleas to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament for help will not put right your legal problems or what your solicitor did to you.</p><p align="justify">A <a title="http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/publications/Consumer-Guide-Costs-BW.pdf" href="http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/publications/Consumer-Guide-Costs-BW.pdf"><strong><u>handy guide published by the Legal Ombudsman</u></strong></a>, reprinted by DOI in this article, gives a list of ten questions consumers and clients of solicitors should ask their legal representatives before taking on representation and expensive legal services.&nbsp; </p><p align="justify">There are further tips in the full LeO leaflet, so please download it and read thoroughly before engaging legal representation.</p><p align="justify">This guide was written for the English legal services market, and you may be an English reader, so go right ahead and ask you solicitor these ten basic questions on costs.</p><p align="justify">However, the same questions apply as much in Scotland as anywhere else -&nbsp; and anyone using a Scottish solicitor should consider asking these same questions. </p><p align="justify">If you don't like the answers you receive, or don't get any answers at all - then the best consumer advice possible is to protect yourself and walk away. </p><p align="justify">At the very least, you will have saved yourself hundreds, or thousands or tens of thousands of pounds for something involving a lawyer which may well have ended up going wrong anyway. </p><p align="justify">Why put yourselves through a five year heartache losing your savings to a lawyer, when ten little questions and answers may save you a whole lot of trouble.</p><p align="justify">The introduction to the leaflet from the Legal Ombudsman states: <strong>“If you use a lawyer, he or she should talk to you about the cost of their services. But you should also understand their charges. We have come up with ten questions to ask your lawyer about the cost of your service. We've also included some top tips and explained the terms used to help you get the most from conversations with lawyers about costs.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>As a consumer, you have the right to expect your lawyer to be clear about how much they are likely to charge you, and for the final bill to be clearly explained and in the range you expected.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Legal services can be complex and the final cost can depend on things such as the type of service, individual details of the case, and how events develop. The expertise and experience of the lawyer may affect things too. However, most services are straightforward and your lawyer should give you a clear idea of what you will be charged from the start. Even if things do get complicated, your lawyer should warn you when this happens, so there shouldn't be any surprises in your final bill.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>A lawyer who values good service will happily answer your cost-related questions. Lawyers also have a duty to provide you with a client care letter when you appoint them. This letter should clearly explain the costs for the service and any terms and conditions that may affect the final price.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Question 1 </strong>&nbsp;<strong>Will I be charged for a consultation?</strong></p><p align="justify">Finding the lawyer who is right for you and the service you need is important. A consultation by phone, face-to-face, letter or online can help you make your decision. A lawyer can charge you for a consultation but they should tell you before you book and explain any conditions. For example, they may offer the first 30 minutes free but charge for time above that. <p align="justify">A lawyer should speak to you about costs and provide the best possible information so you can make an informed choice. <p align="justify">If you have a consultation, make the most of the opportunity. Do your research to find the right lawyer - you can check online, talk to friends and family, or speak to consumer organisations to help you make your choice. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 2&nbsp; "How do you cost your service?"</strong></p><p align="justify">This question can help you shop around to get best value for money. Two lawyers may provide very different estimates for the same service. Understanding why the quotes differ can help you make the right decision. For example, one lawyer may be more experienced or an expert in the area of law your case involves. If you have a complex case, you might think it's better to pay more as it may improve the outcome and cost you less in the long run. With a fairly simple case you might decide you don't need that level of expertise, so it may be better value to go with the cheaper estimate. <p align="justify">Experience and skill are just two reasons why costs may differ. There are now more ways than ever to provide a legal service which can have an impact on what you pay. For example, you can now buy services that are phone or web based rather than face-to-face. Providers who offer this type of service may save on rent and backroom costs and might therefore offer a cheaper price to customers. Understanding if this type of service works for you will help you decide if it is, or isn't, value for money. <p align="justify">Estimates may vary for a whole host of reasons. Ask questions until you understand enough about the services on offer so you can pick one that suits you. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 3 "Can you tell me more about the way you charge?"</strong> <p align="justify">Lawyers have different ways of charging and their charging method may also vary according to the service. For example, they may offer a fixed fee for writing a will, but an hourly rate for a probate service (the administration of a will when someone has died). Find out what charging method the lawyer will use and ask them to explain it to you in detail. Questions 4 and 5 help with understanding fixed fee and hourly rate charges. <p align="justify">Conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) are also known as 'no win, no fee' arrangements. If you lose, you won't, in general, have to pay your lawyer's fees, but may need to pay some out of pocket expenses such as barrister's fees or court fees. You may also be liable to pay some of the other side's costs but it is possible to get insurance to protect against this. If you win, you will have to pay your lawyer's fees and in addition there is usually a success fee which is intended to cover the risk that the firm are entering into with this type of agreement. You should in most cases, however, be able to recover your fees (including any success fee) from the other side. If you are thinking about entering into one of these arrangements, make sure you ask detailed questions so that you fully understand the terms and conditions. <p align="justify">Contingency fee agreements are also a type of 'no win no fee' agreement. If your lawyer agrees to represent you under a contingency fee agreement -- which should not be confused with a conditional fee arrangement - they will be able to claim a percentage of any money they win on your behalf plus expenses. If you lose the case, you won't be charged a fee, but you might still have to pay other costs (which could include the other side's legal costs too). <p align="justify">The contingency fee percentage must be agreed in advance. You should also check whether the lawyer will deduct any expenses before they take their contingency fee or after as this can make a significant difference to the amount you finally receive. If the percentage you are asked to pay is very high, you could end up with very little - even if you win. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 4 "What is a fixed fee and what does it cover?</strong>&nbsp; <strong>Will I be charged for any other costs?</strong> <p align="justify">The term 'fixed fee' can be used in different ways. It can be easy to assume that it covers all costs for the service you need. In some cases that may be true, but it may also just refer to the lawyer's fees. For example, a 'fixed fee' in a property case may, or may not, include charges related to searches. Sometimes a lawyer may offer a 'fixed fee' for a stage of the case, so don't feel embarrassed about asking your lawyer exactly what they mean by 'fixed fee'. It's not a silly question; the term isn't self-explanatory. <p align="justify">Lawyers will sometimes give you an estimate of the costs. This isn't the same as a 'fixed fee', so check what your lawyer means. This can be important as sometimes a lawyer may charge a fixed fee for a particular stage but give an estimate for the next stage. If that happens, or you aren't sure, check what your lawyer means and ask for an estimate for the total cost of the case. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 5&nbsp; "You charge an hourly rate but I'd like an estimate for the cost of the whole service. What will my final bill look like?"</strong></p><p align="justify">If your lawyer charges an hourly rate, they must give you an estimate of how much the overall service will be. This should compare reasonably with your final bill. If you aren't sure, then ask your lawyer to give you an estimate for the whole service. Sometimes it can be hard to predict how much it will all cost. Ask so you know how certain the estimate is. Having a range of costs might be more helpful than a single number, which could shift up or down. The important thing is to understand how much the total bill could be. <p align="justify">You are entitled to ask the lawyer to set a limit on the costs. This means your lawyer has to check that you are happy to continue if the spend approaches the agreed threshold. Setting a limit can help you make sure you don't spend more than you can afford. <p align="justify">Ask questions to understand exactly when the clock starts. For example, if you call your lawyer for an update on your case will you be charged for the call? Ask if, and how, your lawyer rounds up their charges. Many lawyers charge in six minute blocks - check if that's how your lawyer works. Make sure you feel comfortable with the way they charge. <p align="justify">As with 'fixed fees', ask if there are any other costs that won't be covered in the hourly rate. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 6 "Could my costs change? How will you let me know if they do?"</strong> <p align="justify">There may be circumstances where costs do change. This is most likely if new information or developments make a case more difficult. For example, in a divorce case much is dependent on the other person's cooperation to resolve it quickly. Even if both people intend to behave amicably, sometimes that resolve breaks down. If your costs look like they are changing, ask your lawyer about it. In general, your lawyer should tell you as soon as they are aware of any changes, but you don't have to wait to ask for an explanation. Another option is to ask, when you choose your lawyer, if their original estimate is likely to be breached. If you have agreed a spending limit (see question 5), then your lawyer should stop work until you confirm that you want to continue. <p align="justify">If a case gets complicated even a 'fixed fee' arrangement can change. Your lawyer should explain when this might happen and also set out the terms and conditions in your client care letter. Make sure you understand and ask if there is a 'get out' clause to say if additional costs can be charged. <p align="justify">Remember, you always have options, even in the middle of a legal transaction. If there is a big hike in the costs of using a lawyer, then your lawyer should tell you about them and let you know what your options are. You could use a different specialist who might cost less but take longer, or only use email to contact your lawyer. There might also be some stages in the process that can be missed out. Ask your lawyer how you can work with them to reduce costs. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 7 Are there any extra costs?</strong> <p align="justify">This really is a catch-all question to help you budget for your service. You are basically asking your lawyer if they have given you all the information they reasonably can to make sure there aren't any nasty surprises in the future. Examples of the sort of information this question might raise are additional costs for things like expert reports (such as from a doctor), or photocopying. Some firms use premium rate phone numbers, which could add unexpected costs to the final amount you spend for your service. Use these examples as a prompt to discuss this issue. Your lawyer should also tell you if you are likely to incur any bank charges. For example, you might need to make a CHAPs payment (same day electronic transfer) which can cost over £20 in a property transaction. <p align="justify">Finally, don't forget to check if your estimate is inclusive of VAT. Your lawyer should tell you, but check so that you don't get a higher bill than you're expecting. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 8</strong>&nbsp;<strong>"Can I get help with the cost of my legal service?"</strong> <p align="justify">A lawyer should always talk to you about how the service will be paid for and discuss options such as insurance or membership of a union that might help cover the costs. There can be some fine-print with different insurance options that you need to understand, so ask lots of questions to make sure you know what you are signing up to. Some insurances, like 'after the event' or 'before the event' insurance, could cover you for some things but not for others. Ask your lawyer for more information. <p align="justify">If you receive benefits or are on a low income you might qualify for help that may reduce or cover all of your costs. There are different programmes for different types of help but the best known is legal aid, which provides free legal advice from lawyers who are registered with the service. Even if your lawyer isn't registered to provide legal aid they should tell you about it so you have the option of going to a lawyer who can. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 9 "When will I be billed and how long will I have to pay? Do you offer payment options?"</strong> <p align="justify">A lawyer should give you clear information on their billing process and offer reasonable time for you to make payments. They should also let you know if there are penalty charges if you don't pay on time. You may be asked to pay some money at the start either to cover certain expenses or as an advance payment of fees. Lawyers aren't obliged to offer you payment options, but some may be willing to negotiate. Asking the question might help you find a lawyer whose service fits your personal circumstances. <p align="justify"><strong>Question 10 "What happens if I disagree with the amount I've been charged?"</strong> <p align="justify">Your lawyer should tell you their approach to resolving billing disagreements. Every lawyer should have a complaints handling system in place, so find out how their system works. You should not be charged by a lawyer for looking at your complaint - it is very poor service if they do. When you appoint a lawyer they are also obliged to let you know about the Legal Ombudsman who can help you to resolve your complaint if you and your lawyer can't reach an agreement. <p align="justify">Note – if you disagree with legal bills in Scotland, cases have revealed solicitors often employ threats and legal action for demands to be met within seven days. In some cases solicitors have applied to sequestrate their clients for disagreements on legal bills, and willing, compliant local sheriff courts staffed by familiar clerks and members of the judiciary often grant such orders with little regard for the facts or any representations from clients who question the integrity of legal fees.</p><p align="justify"><strong>SCOTLAND – Consumer protection against rogue solicitors and law firms does not exist.</strong></p><p align="justify">How bad is the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to protecting consumers? The answer is&nbsp; very bad. The Law Society of Scotland is a lobby group for the legal profession which puts lawyers interests first, before clients, the public, or anyone else. Do not expect client protection from a system where lawyers regulate themselves.</p><p align="justify">Read previous articles on the Law Society of Scotland here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Law%20Society%20of%20Scotland"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland - A history of control of the legal profession, and no client protection</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Previous reports on the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal – The pro-lawyer tribunal which determines ‘punishments’ for solicitors after complaints have endured an eternity at the Law Society &amp; SLCC, can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Solicitors%20Discipline%20Tribunal"><strong><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - Pro-lawyer protection against client complaints</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the pro-lawyer Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Legal%20Complaints%20Commission"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation</u></strong></a>. </p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/legal-costs-ask-your-solicitor-ten.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-8779129832921534619Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:49:00 +00002016-11-04T13:49:42.965+00:00consumer protectionindependent regulationLaw Society of ScotlandScottish Legal Complaints CommissionScottish Solicitors Discipline TribunalSolicitors Regulation AuthorityNAME & SHAME: Scots consumers denied records checks on lawyers - as Solicitors Regulation Authority propose detailed public register of lawyers in England & Wales<p align="justify"><a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/"><em><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vfAC0f6jA_c/VrYG1ATCMsI/AAAAAAAACLI/hmQxN_PxEzg/s400-Ic42/SRA%252520regulation%252520cover.jpg" width="358" align="left" height="218"></em></a><em>UK Solicitors regulator plans to publish more data on lawyers. </em><strong>A PROPOSAL</strong> to publish more detailed information about law firms and solicitors in a public register has been launched by the <a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>Solicitors Regulation Authority</u></strong></a> (SRA) – the body charged with investigating solicitors in England &amp; Wales.</p><p align="justify">The move to advance consumer protection south of the border by the English legal regulator could help consumers make more informed choices on the use of legal services, and result in a more competitive legal sector with higher standards of service and client care.</p><p align="justify">However, this is in stark contrast to Scotland, where DOI recently reported on the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC)</u></strong></a> who refuse to publish any useable information to Scots consumers which could help clients steer clear from corrupt lawyers and law firms. </p><p align="justify">The report, available here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-question-of-trust-should-solicitors.html"><strong><u>FROM ROGUES TO RICHES: SLCC refuse to identify corrupt solicitors in case findings</u></strong></a> revealed SLCC determination decisions are heavily redacted and only published after being approved by the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a>, leaving Scots consumers at a considerable disadvantage to consumers in England &amp; Wales.</p><p align="justify">However, and with the advantage of not being held back in the middle ages by the Law Society of Scotland, the England based Solicitors Regulation Authority has launched a discussion paper, "<a title="https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations/discussion-papers/regulatory-data-consumer-choice-legal-services.page" href="https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations/discussion-papers/regulatory-data-consumer-choice-legal-services.page"><strong><u>Regulatory data and consumer choice in legal services</u></strong></a>” exploring what information the SRA could publish through a public register.</p><p align="justify">The proposed public register already allows consumers to check up on lawyers via the SRA’s <a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check.page"><strong><u>Check your solicitor’s record</u></strong></a> service reported earlier here:&nbsp; <a title="INSPECT YOUR ROGUE: Check your solicitors&rsquo; record in England, but not in Scotland - UK Solicitors Regulation Authority &lsquo;years ahead&rsquo; of pro-lawyer Scots legal watchdogs" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/inspect-your-rogue-check-your.html"><strong><u>INSPECT YOUR ROGUE: Check your solicitors’ record in England</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The SRA suggests that consumers could benefit from information such as a solicitor’s qualifications or practice restrictions, and complaints data and insurance claims. The SRA also considers what information law firms might want to publish voluntarily, such as quality marks and service prices.</p><p align="justify">The proposals echo recent calls by the Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA), in its interim report on its market study, as well as from the Legal Services Consumers Panel (LSCP), to improve the level of information available for consumers. The SRA agrees that a lack of clear, targeted information means it is difficult for consumers to compare providers and make informed choices. This is dampening competition in the sector. <p align="justify">Better information could help tackle the problem that the legal needs of individuals and small businesses are not being met. <p align="justify">Only one in ten people use a solicitor when they have a legal problem. And legal problems are estimated to cause small businesses almost £10 billion of losses a year, yet 83 percent of the population see legal services as unaffordable. <p align="justify">Greater transparency would also bring legal services more in line with other sectors, such as financial services and energy, where regulators are already making sure consumer-focused information, such as complaints data, is available. <p align="justify">The SRA recognises that there needs to be careful consideration of the implications of publishing more information. Risks to consider include increased burdens on firms and a one-size-fits-all approach working well for some and not others. For example, the needs of corporate clients will be different to those of an individual consumer. <p align="justify">Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: <strong>"Most people and small businesses are still not accessing legal services. When they do, they are not shopping around. It is unsurprising when the information out there is so limited.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>"We want to help consumers, so they are not left making blind choices. Information such as enforcement action, complaints and claims data are exactly the type of things I would want to know when choosing a solicitor.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>"We know that the public look to the regulators to provide credible, authoritative, objective information.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>"If we get this right, we could help create a more competitive market, where consumers can make better choices and forward-thinking firms thrive. It will also help small businesses access the legal services that could help them succeed and grow.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>"Yet we need to think carefully about what we publish and how. More information will not benefit consumers if they find it confusing, hard to access, or it is unhelpful. We have also made good progress on getting rid of unnecessary burdens on firms. We will not ask firms to do more in this area, unless there is a clear benefit.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>"This is just the start of a discussion, so we are keen to hear what everyone thinks."</strong> <p align="justify">The SRA has already taken steps to improve the information available to consumers by publishing its law firm search in April. And it already publishes details of enforcement action. Publishing useful data in one place would not only help consumers directly, but indirectly as data re-publishers could use it to develop comparison tools that could help make the market more competitive. <p align="justify">The SRA plans to consult on proposals in this area next year. Its discussion paper can be found at: <a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/choice"><strong><u>www.sra.org.uk/choice</u></strong></a>. Closing date for <a title="https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations/discussion-papers/regulatory-data-consumer-choice-legal-services.page" href="https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/consultations/discussion-papers/regulatory-data-consumer-choice-legal-services.page"><strong><u>submissions to the consultation is 26 January 2017</u></strong></a> submissions. <p align="justify">SRA law firm search can be found here: <a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/using-solicitor/law-firm-search/about-search.page"><strong><u>www.sra.org.uk/consumers/using-solicitor/law-firm-search/about-search.page</u></strong></a> <p align="justify">The CMA's interim report looking at ways to improve competition in legal services by increasing information for consumers is available at: <a href="http://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-seeks-views-on-ways-to-help-legal-services-customers"><strong><u>www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-seeks-views-on-ways-to-help-legal-services-customers</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">The Legal Services Consumer Panel's research, "<a href="http://www.legalservicesconsumerpanel.org.uk/publications/research_and_reports/documents/OpenDatainLegalServicesFinal.pdf"><strong><u>Opening up data in legal services (PDF 36 pages, 625K)</u></strong></a>" <p align="justify"><strong>SCOTLAND: Legal Services Consumers held back by Law Society of Scotland &amp; self regulation.</strong> <p align="justify">Away from the fantastical claims of the Law Society of Scotland, the oh-so-easy free pr and spin of how the Law Society protects access to justice while offering client protection, the fact is, consumers of legal services in Scotland have no chance whatsoever of selecting a legal representative based on their regulatory history – because the Law Society of Scotland refuse to publish any detailed regulation histories of their members. <p align="justify">Just how bad is the Law Society of Scotland when it comes to protecting consumers? The answer is very bad. Read previous articles on the Law Society of Scotland here: <a title="Law Society of Scotland - A history of control of the legal profession, and no client protection" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Law%20Society%20of%20Scotland"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland - A history of control of the legal profession, and no client protection</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">A BBC Scotland investigation “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25695719"><strong><u>Lawyers Behaving Badly</u></strong></a>” exposed further weaknesses in the Law Society of Scotland’s system of control freakery self regulation. The BBC programme lifted the lid once more on lawyers investigating their own, how dishonesty plays out at the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal, and legal aid fraud. <p align="justify">A recent DOI investigation into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission revealed most of the SLCC’s key staff and investigators are in-fact families, friends &amp; business associates of solicitors, reported here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/10/conflicting-interests-solicitors.html"><strong><u>'Independent' Scots legal watchdog consists of solicitors’ husbands, wives, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, &amp; employers</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Legal%20Complaints%20Commission"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Previous reports on the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal – The pro-lawyer tribunal which determines ‘punishments’ for solicitors after complaints have endured an eternity at the Law Society &amp; SLCC, can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Solicitors%20Discipline%20Tribunal"><strong><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - Pro-lawyer protection against client complaints</u></strong></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/name-shame-scots-consumers-denied.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-7990787297007343657Wed, 02 Nov 2016 20:57:00 +00002016-11-02T21:27:31.450+00:00consumer protectionLaw Society of ScotlandScottish GovernmentScottish Legal Complaints CommissionScottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunalself regulationSolicitors Regulation AuthorityDISHONESTY RULES: Rogue solicitors guilty of fraud, embezzlement and theft from wills receive soft censures from pro-lawyer Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and courts<p align="justify"><em><a title="Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - Pro-lawyer protection against client complaints" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Solicitors%20Discipline%20Tribunal"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7bDhyZnNfcHpneUU" width="358" align="left" height="541"></a>Consumers are not protected by lawyers regulating lawyers.</em>&nbsp;<strong>SCOTLAND’S </strong>legal profession and anyone connected to it – including the judiciary -&nbsp; often praise the system of self regulation where lawyers look after their own – to the point of taking over and closing any public debate on creating independent regulation of solicitors. </p><p align="justify">And, of course lawyers will continue to regulate themselves in Scotland - because self regulation is too protected by vested legal interests, because it allows a solicitor to rip off their client, to be judged by his colleagues and to walk away from it, no matter what was done to the client.</p><p align="justify">Time and again, lawyers look after their own, investigate themselves, appear in front of their friends at the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC)</u></strong></a>, and, at most, receive a censure, or slap on the wrist from the <a href="http://www.ssdt.org.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal</u></strong></a> (SSDT).</p><p align="justify">Diary of Injustice recently reported on how the SLCC refuses to identify corrupt lawyers within determination decisions which are only published after being approved by the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a>, featured here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-question-of-trust-should-solicitors.html"><strong><u>FROM ROGUES TO RICHES: SLCC refuse to identify corrupt solicitors in case findings</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The SLCC print lists of doctored histories of complaints against lawyers, and then refuse to identify the solicitors who ripped off their clients – how corrupt is that!</p><p align="justify">Compare this to England &amp; Wales, where decisions made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in relation to identified law firms and names of solicitors can easily be found here <a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/recent-decisions/recent-decisions.page"><strong><u>Recent Decisions - Solicitors Regulation Authority</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Striking's off rarely occur, only as a last resort for the members of Scotland’s legal profession must protect their own.</p><p align="justify">The slick SSDT website invites you, the public – to have confidence in the ways lawyers look after their own. </p><p align="justify">Yet in decision after decision, the extent of dishonesty during proceedings renders much of what is published in Tribunal ‘interlocutors’ as clever forgeries of the acts of wilful, determined and well practiced thieves - far more determined than will ever be told in public.</p><p align="justify">The noticeable lack of action by the SSDT to report solicitors to the Police &amp; Crown Office for prosecution, does, as the years go by, verify the position that the SSDT seeks to protect solicitors from the full weight of criminal law – which applies to everyone else.</p><p align="justify">However, on that rare occasion where solicitors do appear in court, you just know they are not going to jail.</p><p align="justify">In a prime example of the above, earlier this week Scotland was meant to weep like a child after the Law Society sought to publicise the fact Paul O’Donnell – a solicitor from the law firm of Thorley Stephenson, in South Bridge – had sold his house to repay more than £21,000 he pled guilty to embezzling from the Edinburgh law firm Thorley Stephenson, in South Bridge .</p><p align="justify">O’Donnell, 35, had previously been warned he was facing jail for the embezzlement but the judge – Sheriff Frank Crowe - allowed him to remain free as he had repaid the £21,485 he had obtained dishonestly.</p><p align="justify">In court -&nbsp; O’Donnell’s defence lawyer -&nbsp; Murray Robertson told Sheriff Crowe that his client had sold his house, moved in with relatives, and the money had been repaid to Thorley Stephenson.</p><p align="justify">Sheriff Crowe was also told O’Donnell had been sequestrated, was declared bankrupt and is no longer practising as a solicitor.</p><p align="justify">In response, Sheriff Crowe told O’Donnell that cases of this nature usually involved a sentence of imprisonment but, as&nbsp; O’Donnell had co-operated and admitted his guilt, arranged the sale of his house and returned the money to Thorley Stephenson, Sheriff Crowe avoided sending O’Donnell to jail and instead confined him to his current address from 9pm to 6am for six months. </p><p align="justify">You may be forgiven for thinking how amazing a lawyer who stole, avoided jail. </p><p align="justify">However, in the rare occurrences when solicitors do come before our courts, jail is always a last resort for the judge – who are themselves, lawyers.</p><p align="justify">So, with facts in hand that our courts take a shine to lawyers with tears in their eyes, it should be of little surprise the latest rulings by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal offer mere censures and fines for executry and will fraud, theft and embezzlement - which are crimes to ordinary people in the real world.</p><p align="justify"><a title="Law Society-v-Euan Maxwell Terras" href="https://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/complaints-of-professional-misconduct/law-society-v-euan-maxwell-terras/"><strong><u>Law Society-v-Euan Maxwell Terras</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">This case involved a solicitor in his writing and executing a Will in which his family were the Primary Beneficiaries. An amazing story, yet only punishment is a fine. </p><p align="justify">Read the ‘published’ details of the hearing here<strong> </strong><a title="Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Euan Maxwell Terras" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VjI0aC10SkRrWkk/"><strong><u>Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Euan Maxwell Terras</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify"><strong>Edinburgh 29 August 2016.&nbsp; The Tribunal having considered the Complaint at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Euan Maxwell Terras, Sprang Terras, 64 Kyle Street, Ayr; Find the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his acting in the purchase of a property with the ancillary execution of a Minute of Agreement and the drafting of a Will where his son was the residuary beneficiary and found that in doing so (1) he acted in an actual conflict of interest situation in the purchase of the property and the execution of the Minute of Agreement where he had a personal and/or financial interest in both; (2) he did not insist that Miss MM consult other solicitors either in the purchase of the property or the execution of the Minute of Agreement when both were actual conflicts of interests; (3) he could not discharge his professional obligations to solely look after the interests of Miss MM both in the purchase of the property and the execution of the Minute of Agreement given the actual conflict of interest in both between him and Miss MM; (4) he called into question his personal integrity/independence in taking instructions and/or drafting the second Will which benefitted members of his family and in terms of which they would derive significant benefit; and (5) his advice, given the terms of the draft second Will, was not free from external influence and placed him in a conflict of interest; Censure the Respondent; Fine the Respondent the sum of £8,000 to be forfeit to Her Majesty; Find the Respondent liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal.</strong></p><p align="justify"><a title="Law Society-v-Philip Simon Hogg" href="https://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/complaints-of-professional-misconduct/law-society-v-philip-simon-hogg/"><strong><u>Law Society-v-Philip Simon Hogg</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Philip Hogg was one of a two-partner Kirkintilloch firm - Alder Hogg. His co-partner was his twin sister Alison Hazel Margaret Greer. The case relates to massive overcharging of clients. – usually defined as fraud if not involving a solicitor. <p align="justify"><b>The following is for one client:</b> The Interlocutor final amount is that for <strong>£129K</strong> of legal work they charged <strong>£219K</strong> for <strong>£90K</strong> more than they should have. So, for this one client, in relation to Mr A's executry, it is accepted that <strong>£90K</strong> was overcharged, however the Tribunal does not explain why a staggering <strong>£129K</strong> of executry fees was deemed acceptable. <p align="justify">Read the full ‘published’ version of events in this shocking case here: <a title="Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Philip Simon Hogg" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WWtYb0p6RF9fN00/"><strong><u>Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Philip Simon Hogg</u></strong></a> <p align="justify"><strong>Edinburgh 25 August 2016.&nbsp; The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 22 April 2016 as substituted by the Complaint dated 25 August 2016 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Philip Simon Hogg, residing at 9 Crossdykes, Kirkintilloch, as amended; Find the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure in his obligation to see that the firm in which he was a partner complied with the accounts rules, his failure in his duty to supervise the firm’s office manager and cashier, his failure in his duty to take steps to satisfy himself that fees being charged to executries were properly so charged, his failure to see that at all times the sums at credit of the client account exceeded the sums due to the clients and his continuing to draw from the firm while it was being financed by the overcharges to clients; Suspend the Respondent from practice for a period of five years and Direct in terms of Section 53(6) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 that the suspension shall take effect on the date on which these findings are intimated to the Respondent;</strong></p><p align="justify"><a title="Law Society-v-Jane Elizabeth Steer" href="https://www.ssdt.org.uk/findings/complaints-of-professional-misconduct/law-society-v-jane-elizabeth-steer/"><strong><u>Law Society-v-Jane Elizabeth Steer</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Elizabeth Steer worked for a Falkirk firm RMS Law. She previously worked for Russell &amp; Aitken and now works for Allan McDougall &amp; Co. <p align="justify">Ms Steer was accused of falsifying an Affidavit.&nbsp; <p align="justify">Affidavits MUST adhere to the following: 1. both parties must be physically present at the signing i.e. the solicitor (notary public) and their client 2.it must be signed at the locus specified in the Affidavit <p align="justify">The affidavit complied with neither of these tests, instead Ms Steer sent it to her client in England to sign and return. <p align="justify">Problems with the affidavit only came to light when the client gave evidence stating that she had not been in Scotland for a while - but when at Avizandum the Sheriff realised that the Affidavit was signed in Scotland at a time when the client swore she was in England. <p align="justify">To make matter worse, Miss Steer also tried to mislead the Law Society during the Investigation. Read the full published Interlocutor here:<strong> </strong><a title="Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Jane Elizabeth Steer" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7T1IzSzJoeW54OWc/"><strong><u>Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Jane Elizabeth Steer</u></strong></a> <p align="justify"><strong>Edinburgh 16 August 2016.&nbsp; The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 31 May 2016 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Jane Elizabeth Steer, Messrs Allan McDougall, 3 Coates Crescent, Edinburgh as amended; Find the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of her failure to act with trust and personal integrity in connection with the preparation of an affidavit which she purported to notarise on 29 October 2012, submission to the court for lodging an affidavit which contained false or misleading information on 5 November 2012 and subsequent failure on 29 June 2014 to provide a full and candid explanation to the Law Society in connection with the preparation of the affidavit and its sending to the Secondary Complainer; Censure the Respondent;</strong> </p><p align="justify">And remember, readers - wherever there is dishonesty, there is a Scottish solicitor, and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.</p><p align="justify"><strong>THE DISHONESTY FACTOR:</strong> <p align="justify">An investigation by BBC Panorama -&nbsp; <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25695719"><strong><u>Lawyers Behaving Badly</u></strong></a> - featured the case of John O’Donnell, and went on to reveal the startling differences in how dishonesty in the Scottish legal profession is treated lightly compared to England &amp; Wales – where dishonesty is automatically a striking off offence. <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25695719"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-IqJlp2ihbJQ/VG8vkt9sPDI/AAAAAAAAAVk/enrmCRrla_s/s400/Alistair%2520Cockburn%2520SSDT%2520Chair.jpg" width="250" align="left" height="142"></a><em>Alistair Cockburn, Chair, Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.</em> Featured in the investigation was the <a href="http://www.ssdt.org.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal</u></strong></a> (SSDT) Chairman’s attitude towards solicitors accused of dishonesty in their representation of clients legal affairs. During the programme, it became clear that dishonesty among lawyers in Scotland is treated less severely, compared to how English regulators treat dishonesty. </p><p align="justify">Sam Poling asks: <strong>The Scottish Solicitors’ Discipline Tribunal hears all serious conduct cases against solicitors. Last year they struck off nine of them. But is this robust enough?</strong> <p align="justify">Alistair Cockburn Chairman, Scottish solicitors discipline tribunal replies: <b>It is robust in the sense that it doesn’t just give convictions on the basis that somebody’s brought before us charged by the Law Society.&nbsp; We are mindful, particularly when reminded of the lay members, of a duty to the public.</b> <p align="justify"><b>One is always concerned when there is deception but you can have a situation where solicitors simply lose their place. </b><b>They make false representations in order to improve their client’s position, not necessarily their own. </b><b>And you would take that into account in deciding what the penalty was but there’s no suggestion that such conduct wasn’t deemed to be professional as conduct.&nbsp; </b><p align="justify">Sam Poling: <strong>So there are levels of dishonesty which sit comfortably with you, satisfactorily with you?</strong> <p align="justify">Alistair Cockburn: <b>No it’s not a question of saying sitting comfortably with me.&nbsp; I’ve told you…</b> <p align="justify">Sam Poling: <strong>OK that you would accept?</strong> <p align="justify">Alistair Cockburn: <b>No I’d be concerned on any occasion that a solicitor was guilty of any form of dishonesty.&nbsp; One has to assess the extent to which anyone suffered in consequence of that dishonesty.&nbsp; You have to take into consideration the likelihood of re-offending and then take a decision.&nbsp; But you make it sound as if it’s commonplace.&nbsp; It isn’t.&nbsp; Normally dishonesty will result in striking-off.</b> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25695719"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5B9DMB8O61U/VG8vkxUyC6I/AAAAAAAAAVg/60gg5rNwBpU/s400/English%2520Qcs.jpg" width="250" align="left" height="142"></a><em>English QC’s agree ‘dishonesty’ is a striking off offence.</em> The SSDT Chairman’s comments on dishonesty compared starkly with the comments of the English QC’s - who said dishonesty was undoubtedly a striking off offence.</p><p align="justify">Andrew Hopper QC: “<strong>I cant get my head round borrowing in this context. Somebody explain to me how you can borrow something without anyone knowing about it. That’s just taking.”</strong> <p align="justify">Andrew Boon Professor of Law, City University, London: <strong>“They actually say in the judgement they would have struck him off but the client hadn't complained.”</strong> <p align="justify">Andrew Hopper QC <strong>“We’re dealing with a case of dishonesty and that affects the reputation of the profession. I would have expected this to result in striking off.”</strong> <p align="justify">Andrew Boon, Professor of Law: <strong>“The critical thing is the risk factor. If somebody has been dishonest once the likelihood is that they are going to be dishonest again unless they’re stopped.”</strong> <p align="justify">As Sam Poling went on to report:<strong> “but he [O’Donnell] wasn't stopped. The tribunal simply restricted his license so that he had to work under the supervision of another solicitor.”</strong> <p align="justify">Previous reports on the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal can be found here: <a title="Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - Pro-lawyer protection against client complaints" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Solicitors%20Discipline%20Tribunal"><strong><u>Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal - Pro-lawyer protection against client complaints</u></strong></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/dishonesty-rules-rogue-solicitors.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-6577441663692539831Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:00:00 +00002016-11-02T10:00:15.947+00:00Eric McQueenJudiciary of ScotlandLord GillParliament HouseScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish GovernmentScottish ParliamentPARLIAMENT ACCOUNTS: How Scotland’s judiciary & courts blew £58 million of taxpayers cash on ‘improvements’ to the Court of Session & Parliament House<p align="justify"><em><a title="Parliament House - A potted history of a &pound;58m raid on public coffers &amp; land titles" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QXlQVDgzSFI1RXc" width="358" align="left" height="521"></a>‘Sundries’ befitting courts &amp; judges: £2.78m.</em>&nbsp;<strong>SCOTLAND’S </strong>top judges and their attendants at the <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS) don't do detail when it comes to accounting for the £58 million raid on taxpayers cash – to fund ‘improvements’ to Parliament House - seat of the Court of Session.</p><p align="justify">According to<strong> </strong><a title="Parliament House &pound;58 million spend - accounts" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7YnlNU0hhcGpsMlU/"><strong><u>documents released by the SCTS</u></strong></a> in response to a Freedom of Information request, the staggering <strong>£57,517,062.82 </strong>splurge on the well known, if rotting, bleak and life ending Parliament House gives little detail to public eyes on exactly what work took place.</p><p align="justify">In one accounts category, a grand total of <strong>£2,780,612.72</strong> of public cash falls under the heading of “<strong>Sundries under £100K</strong>” – reminiscent of an entry from the ledger of Al Capone’s not so fabled book keeper in the days of&nbsp; “The Untouchables”.</p><p align="justify">And, ironically, the City of Edinburgh Council – who used to own the building before Scottish Ministers took the titles for themselves – were paid the sum of <strong>£2,436,439.45</strong> as part of the works plan – small compensation for the loss of a building right in the centre of Edinburgh, valued potentially as a site in the hundreds of millions of pounds.</p><p align="justify">The ‘full’ figures released in documents provided by the SCTS in terms of where the money went reveal the following: <strong>Aedas ARCHITECTS £3,014,605.06, Amec Initial building contractor £101,669.52, Archibald McKellar Ltd furniture £259,024.15, City of Edinburgh Council Costs for decant to 1a during works&nbsp; £2,436,439.45, Currie and Brown Project managers £3,292,438.75, Davis Langdon Cost consultants £554,067.40, Dinardo Partnership Services consultant&nbsp; £112,672.00, GHI Fit out contractor £858,338.19, Guardian&nbsp; Storage and removals £269,646.09, Hands of Wycombe&nbsp; furniture £377,036.41, Heriot Video AV AV court kit £219,729.81, Interserve&nbsp; Main contractor £42,030,146.95, Thomas Johnstone Limited Fit out contractor £1,021,776.27, W Stewart Client advisor £188,860.05, Sundries under £100k Miscellaneous £2,780,612.72, TOTAL £57,517,062.82</strong></p><p align="justify">In truth, and to those who have passed through the unfriendly halls of this intimidating structure - which also serves as the command post of Scotland’s Lord President &amp; Lord Justice General - currently <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> (Colin Sutherland), Parliament House differs little from the mid 1990’s.</p><p align="justify">Just how was this multi million pound judicial gorge on the public purse explained to the public and Scottish Parliament? Watch the following: </p><p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJ3cP5Gghk"><strong><u>SCTS Chief Eric McQueen to MSPs - We spent £58 million of public cash on Parliament House</u></strong></a></p><p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VYJ3cP5Gghk?rel=0" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p align="justify">During <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJ3cP5Gghk"><strong><u>questions from Justice Committee MSPs</u></strong></a>, SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen gave evidence on the massive £60 million taxpayer funded spend on Parliament House. <p align="justify">The Court Service Chief told MSPs: <strong>“We are just coming to the end of the Parliament house contract; in total, the budget for it was £65 million and I think that we expect the final spend to be in the low £60 millions. The project has been delivered on budget, on time and on quality. How it has been delivered is a tribute to the Scottish Court Service.</strong> <p align="justify">McQueen continued:<strong> “I will give a potted history of the Parliament house situation. About 10 years ago, a scheme was in place that was going to run to way over £120 million. That was brought to a stop to allow us to reassess things and to consider the best strategy. At the same time, we looked at a business case for moving away from Parliament house altogether and having a development on a greenfield or brownfield site on the outskirts of Edinburgh. The major problem with Parliament house is that it is a grade A listed building and is a site of special historical interest. It should be a landmark building for the whole of Scotland.”</strong> <p align="justify">In an intervention, the Convener of the Justice Committee – Christine Grahame MSP said: <strong>“I am glad that you did not move to a greenfield site. It would have been a bit like going to B&amp;Q. I do not mean to malign B&amp;Q, but I like the old Parliament house building.”</strong> <p align="justify">Eric McQueen replied : “<strong>Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government's purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”</strong> <p align="justify">Sitting beside Eric McQueen was Lord President Brian Gill, who did not at any stage of the meeting volunteer information to the Justice Committee in relation to the titles arrangements of Parliament House, despite the multi million pound taxpayer funded refurbishment. <p align="justify">Last year Diary of Injustice<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/wolffe-hall-as-edinburgh-city-council.html"><strong><u>reported on the City of Edinburgh Council’s efforts to recover the titles to Parliament House</u></strong></a> after land reform campaigner Andy Wightman – now an MSP - revealed <a href="http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4172"><strong><u>land titles to the buildings of Scotland’s top courts</u></strong></a> were ‘gifted’ by Scottish Ministers to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify">A disclosure of <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QUxVRVZ3bGtFdkU/view"><strong><u>eighty eight pages of documents</u></strong></a> released to DOI under Freedom of Information legislation - revealed at the time the Scottish Government had no plans to act over their handing over of the Parliament Hall land titles to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ZW1wbHhvXzhrQ1k/"><strong><u>Documents released by the Scottish Government</u></strong></a> and published by DOI also revealed the former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20Wolffe%20QC"><strong><u>James Wolffe QC</u></strong></a> (now Lord Advocate) - refused to give any expectation of success on attempts by Edinburgh Council to recover public ownership of titles to Parliament House and the Laigh Hall. <p align="justify">In a separate 47 page<strong> </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dUN4WWhfdEprcnc/view"><strong><u>Freedom of Information document release</u></strong></a> by<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.ros.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Registers of Scotland</u></strong></a> (RoS)– the body charged with registering land ownership in Scotland – several documents highlight Scottish Government civil servants scrambling to protect Ministers from questions over the titles loss in the Scottish Parliament while vested legal interests are of a clear persuasion titles should be handed over to the Faculty of Advocates. Attempts by Edinburgh Council to recover the Parliament Hall titles ended in a failed legal action, reported here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-hall-papers-reveal-councils.html"><strong><u>WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council’s legal action ‘abandoned’, £320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Previous reports on the loss of public ownership of Scotland’s top court – Parliament House can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><strong><u>Parliament House - The lost titles to the City of Edinburgh</u></strong></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/11/parliament-accounts-how-scotlands.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-421661563290429252Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:34:00 +00002016-11-01T14:44:52.335+00:00Freedom of InformationJudicial Institute for ScotlandJudiciary of ScotlandLord Gillregister of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish ParliamentTHE JUDICIAL SERVICE: How Scotland’s secretive judicial elite peddle their influence in jurisdictions around the world, and where judges go - corporate vested interests follow<p align="justify"><em><a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals, mercenaries, tax avoidance &amp; banks fined for financial markets manipulation" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QlFGQ3FkRDZKYkU" width="358" align="left" height="527"></a>Scots judges ‘influence’ building – Lord Gill.</em> <strong>ONE ITEM</strong> which stood out in evidence given by former top judge <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> to the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee last November, was the ‘influence’ Scotland’s judiciary pride themselves in being able to exert over courts and judges in other jurisdictions across the world.</p><p align="justify">As <a title="JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges&rsquo; secret wealth &amp; interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill&rsquo;s evidence as &ldquo;passive aggression&rdquo;" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><strong><u>the top judge muddled through his evidence</u></strong></a>, rants on transparency, aggression, and accusing US justices of basing their careers on corporate cash, Brian Gill told MSPs<strong> “It is important that the public should know that the Scottish judiciary enjoys a reputation throughout the judicial world that is out of all proportion to the size of our small nation.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Gill, who was answering questions on his opposition to judicial transparency, continued: <strong>“The influence that it exerts in judicial thinking is enormous. The Scottish judiciary is admired, is respected and plays its part in the international world of judicial affairs.”</strong></p><p align="justify">And the former Lord President was not kidding in what he said. </p><p align="justify">At least, not the part about meddling and peddling influence in other countries – which appears to emanate from members of the <a title="Judicial Office for Scotland" href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/"><strong><u>Judicial Office for Scotland</u></strong></a> who <a title="LORD JET SET: Scotland&rsquo;s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/lord-jet-set-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html"><strong><u>often award themselves off-the-books diplomatic roles</u></strong></a>, backed up by wads of taxpayers cash.</p><p align="justify">As for admired and respected, well, not really. Headlines on how judges look down upon the community they are paid to serve - reveal little proof of Lord Gill’s ‘world respected’ Scottish judiciary. </p><p align="justify">Though, of course, it is a good thing those from far off jurisdictions come to Scotland to learn of our legal system. Who would deny that. </p><p align="justify">But, when someone with close judicial ties hints to a visiting legal figure - they know a company who can provide a “must have” legal service, anyone looking in realises the whole gathering is just about money, rather than sharing experience, building influence and enduring a boring legal conference.</p><p align="justify">And, spare a thought for foreign companies who are handed the line they can only do business in Scotland’s courts, if they pay a certain legal firm vast legal fees to do so – a legal firm who just happen to employ members of the judiciary in various causes.</p><p align="justify">As a parliamentary probe and media investigation into judicial influence rumbles on,<strong> </strong><a title="Table of Events - Judicial Seminars, training, meetings &amp; speeches" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7MlVWdXJSUjV3Nk0/"><strong><u>documents on judicial 'seminars' released by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> shed a little more light on the closed off world of judicial influence peddled by such bodies as the Judicial Institute for Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Via palm pressing, plush taxpayer funded dinners, unpublished hospitality, trinkets and ‘lectures’ to visiting foreign judges, Scotland’s judiciary has indeed, as Lord Gill said himself - built up a finger in every pie, from courts in China and links to wealthy elite, to influence across justice systems around the world.</p><p align="justify">However, it is not too difficult to notice where our judges go, business follows – eager to lobby for legal services contracts abroad, sometimes in countries which can ill afford such ‘luxuries’ and in many cases, could well do without.</p><p align="justify">The column of corporate vested interests following in the wake of Scotland’s judicial ermine is so obvious, it stands out like a line of tanks against a violent orange-red sunset.</p><p align="justify">And these same corporations, among others, appear in the <a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals, mercenaries, tax avoidance &amp; banks fined for financial markets manipulation" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html"><strong><u>Judicial Rich List</u></strong></a> investigation - the very same companies and vested interests doing business in Scotland’s courts, and in which our judges hold undisclosed financial stakes they are scared to death of declaring in a register of interests - <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a>. </p><p align="justify">Not too difficult to spot, if you know what to look for. Company note pads in a far off distant rural court, a judge or civil servant in a legal department who develops lifestyle changes and expensive tastes - after schmoozing with Scots judges &amp; the legal profession. Gotcha.</p><p align="justify">The more obvious ones such as a public official now promoting a huge corporate legal services contract to his colleagues in an area of a developing country where it does not make sense to spend millions on a commercial legal service a judge in Scotland advocates as a “must have”, solely due to the fact that very same judge in Scotland holds shares in the company.</p><p align="justify">But, let us remind ourselves, we are, after all, talking about influence peddling by Scotland’s judiciary - a judiciary that spent four years battling proposals in the Scottish Parliament to create a register of judicial interests. Just imagine for a second how this looks to the outside world.</p><p align="justify">Remember, for this was a Lord President who preached ‘Transparency is insidious’ to a gathering of ‘respected’ lawyers and judges.</p><p align="justify">Gill’s exact words at the 2015 Commonwealth Law Conference in Edinburgh were: <strong>“The threats to judicial independence do not always come with a knock on the door in the middle of the night.&nbsp; In a society that prides itself on the independence of its judiciary, the threat may come in insidious ways, even at the hands of well-meaning governments and legislators, in the name of efficiency and, ironically, in the name of&nbsp; transparency.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Those present, laughed, and agreed. The legal profession and justice system is supreme over all. Governments - They are subordinate to all things law, and the judiciary write the law.</p><p align="justify">Gill, was on a roll. Managing a quip to his esteemed legal audience about the execution of protestors in the centre of Edinburgh, Lord Gill said: <strong>“Two years ago, I was crossing the square outside my court when I noticed two individuals standing, perhaps appropriately, at the Heart of Midlothian, the scene of public executions in Edinburgh in former times. They were holding a large banner. It caught my eye. It said "Lord Gill - Resign!" I never discovered what their reasons were; but I thought what a privilege it was to be a judge in a society where the public could make a constructive suggestion of that nature without being taken away by the police.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7THB4cXFMWjVNMjA/view"><strong><u>Speech given by Lord Gill to Commonwealth Law Conference Glasgow 2015</u></strong></a>, which could be described as more of an assault on free thinking &amp; expectation of judicial transparency, was given just before Brian Gill led a column of judges including Lord Neuberger out of the conference, desperate to flee the earth shaking sight of Julian Assange on a giant screen.</p><p align="justify">Assange, Wikileaks, the media, even the Scottish Parliament - exist to represent transparency, openness, and ensure the public know what is going on.</p><p align="justify">Yet Scotland’s judiciary view transparency as insidious, and fear a knock on the door at night. Brian Gill, the Lord President, said so himself - to cheers, and perhaps the odd gasp of shock. </p><p align="justify">Many of the events listed are run by the Judicial Institute for Scotland – a quango created by Lord Brian Gill to give on the job training to Scotland’s judiciary.</p><p align="justify">Diary of Injustice reported on the creation of the Judicial Institute by Lord Gill during his first few months as Lord President, in January 2013, here:<strong> </strong><a title="Teaching old dogs new tricks ? Judicial Institute for Scotland aims to drag Judges out of &ldquo;Victorian&rdquo; era ways with training, technology, &amp; business as usual" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/teaching-old-dogs-new-tricks-judicial.html"><strong><u>Teaching old dogs new tricks - Judicial Institute for Scotland aims to drag Judges out of “Victorian” era ways with training, technology, &amp; business as usual</u></strong></a><strong>.</strong></p><p align="justify">In a speech detailing the creation of the quango, Lord Gill, emphasised the importance he placed on providing judges in Scotland with high quality training in order to ensure that they are in a position to deal with the raft of new legislation and case law, and that they are fully conversant with courtroom technology and case-management expectations. <p align="justify">Gill said: <strong>“Judicial training is not simply an optional extra for the judiciary. We have an obligation individually and collectively to ensure that we maintain a professional approach throughout our judicial life.&nbsp; This new learning suite will enable us to ensure that judges in Scotland benefit from the latest technology in helping them to meet the challenges that lay ahead”</strong> <p align="justify">However, what was initially claimed to be little more than a meeting place for Sheriffs and more senior judges to meet and exchange views, the Judicial Institute for Scotland quickly turned into a cover for largesse, hospitality and travel junkets including overseas trips, conferences at expensive venues &amp; hotels, and posh dinners for judges and their guests - all paid for by taxpayers cash.</p><p align="justify">As journalists continue an investigation into judicial connections around the world, the scale of judicial meddling &amp; peddling around the world in the past two years becomes more apparent in <a title="documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7MlVWdXJSUjV3Nk0/"><strong><u>documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation</u></strong></a>. </p><p align="justify">Bear in mind these events are dressed up as legal gatherings. But as they say, it if’s worth doing, it’s worth doing for money, M’Lord.</p><p align="justify">And, rather than spending their days in the Court of Session, the judges you pay £40 million a year of public cash, are busy operating their own business and influence peddling machine:</p><p align="justify"><strong>4 April 2014 Sheriff T Welsh QC (Director of the Judicial Institute) Sheriff A Duff (Deputy Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Bosnia and Herzegovina: The delegation spent the morning with the Institute, during which we demonstrated and discussed Scotland's support technology for vulnerable witnesses. Held in Edinburgh £28 </strong><p align="justify"><strong>8 April 2014 Sheriff T Welsh QC (Director of the Judicial Institute) THEMIS Competition Europe-wide debating competition for trainee judges and prosecutors and Judicial Institute contributed towards cost of reception Held in Glasgow. £541.20</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>14-16 April 2014 Lord Gill Visit to Qatar Lord Gill was invited to address the judges of the Supreme Court on developing a judicial code of conduct. £2,855.52 (overall cost of the visit)</strong> <strong>The visit actually lasted five days, according to travel expense claims.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>16-22 April 2014 Sheriff T Welsh QC (Director of the Judicial Conference) Sheriff Duff (deputy director of Judicial Institute) International: The director and deputy director of the JI presented a session at the conference entitled 'The Role of the Judiciary in Promotion of a Culture of Tolerance'. Held in Islamabad, Pakistan. All costs met by host country.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>9 May 2014 Sheriff T Welsh QC (Director of the Judicial Institute) Lord Brodie Visit by delegation from the China University of Political Science and law and the Baowei Corporation: The main purpose of the visit was to gain an insight into the Court of Session and the public law litigation system in Scotland, in light of China's recent revision of its Administrative Litigation Law Held in Edinburg. £103.35</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>22-26 June 2014 Sheriff McFadyen International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Conference in Vancouver, Canada: Sheriff McFadyen was invited to address Crimes and Punishments from Beccaria to Present on preventing crime and promoting speedy trial: what would Beccaria think of us? Held in Vancouver, Canada £1,408.31 (overall cost of attending the conference).</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>19 August 2014 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Punjabi Judicial Academy Via Skype Participation in training course being delivered to Pakistani judiciary No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>5 September 2014 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit by Norwegian delegation of judges and court staff To observe court proceedings and judicial training in Scotland. Held in Edinburgh. No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>16 - 17 September 2014 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit to High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina: To demonstrate the Scottish approach to the issue of witness protection and the giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses.Held in Bosnia and Herzegovina All costs paid by host country £21.00</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>14 Nov 2014 The Judicial Institute Board - Lord Malcolm (Chairman of the Judicial Institute) Lord Woolman (Vice Chairman, of the Judicial Institute)Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Sheriff A Cubie (Deputy Director of the Judicial Institute)&nbsp; UK and Ireland Judicial Studies Council annual meeting Edinburgh: The UKIJSC consists of representatives of the judicial training institutions throughout the UK and Ireland. It meets annually to exchange ideas and information about judicial training £249.50</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>26 March 2015 Lady Scott Visit by Japanese Supreme Court Justice Takehiko Otani The Judicial Institute hosted an afternoon visit to the Sheriff court and High Court Held in Edinburgh. No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>12 April 2015 Lord Gill Commonwealth Chief Justices Association Conference Scotland's turn to host the event Held in Glasgow £1741.56</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>22 June 2015 Lord Malcolm (Chairman of the Judicial Institute) Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Jiangxi, China: The Judicial Institute welcomed a delegation from Jiangxi for a half day visit to learn about Scotland's legal system. Held in Edinburgh. No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>24 June 2015 Lord Carloway International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law Conference: Lord Carloway delivered a speech on the use of digital technology in the fair and efficient presentation of evidence. Held in Edinburgh. No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>2 July 2015 Lord Woolman (Vice Chairman of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Seoul Central District Court, South Korea The Judicial Institute for Scotland hosted a visit from Judge Dohyoung Kim who wished to learn about warrants in the Scottish legal system. Held in Edinburgh.</strong> <strong>No costs.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>31 August - 4 September 2015 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) EJTN Exchange Visit The Judicial Institute hosted a visit from Judge Frieda San Jose Arrongo who visited the Judicial Institute for Scotland as part of the EJTN exchange programme. Held in Edinburgh All costs met by EJTN</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>4 September 2015 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Sheriff A Cubie (Deputy Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Hubei High People's Court, China: The Judicial Institute hosted a half-day visit of senior judges who wished to discuss areas including the management and supervision of judges as well as alternative dispute resolution and IT.</strong> <strong>Held in Edinburgh. No costs.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>14 September 2015 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Fredrikstad District Court, Norway: The Judicial Institute coordinated a visit by judges and staff who observed criminal trials, and took part in a panel discussion on a wide range of subjects. Held in Edinburgh, £262</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>16 October 2015 Lord Woolman (Chairman of the Judicial Institute) Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Beijing The Judicial Institute hosted a late afternoon visit of judges from Beijing High Peoples Court who wished to learn more about judicial training. Held in Edinburgh, No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>8 - 14 December 2015 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Sheriff A Cubie (Deputy Director of the Judicial Institute) Visit from Pakistan Judicial Training Academies: The Judicial Institute hosted a visit of two judges from the Punjab Judicial Academy who wished to learn more about the Scottish legal system and judicial training in Scotland. Held in Edinburgh. No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>26 January 2016 Sheriff A Duff (Director of the Judicial Institute) Punjabi Judicial Academy Participation in training course being delivered to Pakistani judiciary Held via SKYPE. No costs</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>14 April 2016 Lord Carloway World Bar Conference: Lord Carloway was invited to speak at the World Bar Conference. This event brings together the members of independent boards of International Council of Advocates and Barristers.</strong> <strong>Held in Edinburgh. No costs recorded.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>30 May to 2 June 2016 Lady Dorian Lord Pentland Lord Brodie Lord Menzies Lord Bannatyne Lord Woolman Lady Scott Sheriff A Duff JI AMB INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS: Members of Scottish Judiciary presented sessions on the Scottish Legal System over the 4 day conference and hosted a reception for the 180 Brazilian judges plus 70 invited guests Held in Edinburgh. £7,010.40</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>6 July 2016 Lord Pentland China Law Society Visit from members of the China Law Society which conducts research into all areas of legal and judicial reform Held in Edinburgh, No costs</strong> <p align="justify">So, next time you see a protest in another country, against a justice system which serves itself, rather than delivers justice for the community it serves, spare a minute and think, did our judges cause that mess to happen? The odds are, if you believe our own Lord President – Yes. <p align="justify"><strong>BRAZIL JUDICIARY’S £7K SUPPER: Scottish reception as investigation reveals UK &amp; Scots judiciary’s links to bribe companies:</strong></p><p align="justify">Scotland’s Judiciary serenaded Brazil judges while a major ongoing investigation by Brazilian authorities continues into British Companies who bribed their way round Brazil industry and government.</p><p align="justify">A recent investigation by the Guardian Newspaper and <a title="Rolls-Royce 'made secret payments'" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37823554"><strong><u>BBC Panorama</u></strong></a> has established one of the companies&nbsp; - Rolls Royce - may have benefited from use of alleged payments by network of intermediaries for years <a title="Rolls-Royce middlemen may have used bribes to land major contracts" href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/31/rolls-royce-middlemen-may-have-used-bribes-to-land-major-contracts"><strong><u>Rolls Royce - may have benefited from use of alleged payments by network of intermediaries for years</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">The latest investigation comes after<strong> </strong><a title="Rolls-Royce faces second investigation in Brazil corruption scandal" href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/27/rolls-royce-second-investigation-brazil-petrobas"><strong><u>the Guardian newspaper revealed last year</u></strong></a> Rolls-Royce was facing further scrutiny over bribery allegations in Brazil after a high-level congressional commission told the newspaper it will investigate the company in connection with a sprawling corruption scandal. </p><p align="justify">The Guardian further reported Rolls Royce&nbsp; were involved in two investigations in Brazil after the company admitted last it is cooperating with investigating bodies, believed to include Brazil’s federal anti-corruption authority. The commission confirmed the inquiry intends to examine Rolls-Royce’s relationship with Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, currently ensnared in a multibillion-dollar bribery scandal which has prompted political turmoil in the country.</p><p align="justify">However, any prosecutions or legal action taken as a result of evidence accrued by investigators and authorities in Brazil - is likely to come before members of the <a title="AMB Association of Brazilian Magistrates" href="http://www.amb.com.br/"><strong><u>AMB Association of Brazilian Magistrates</u></strong></a> - Brazil’s Judges Association – who were recently in Scotland on public cash junkets to ‘study’ the Scots judicial system and attend ‘law conferences’.</p><p align="justify">The Association of Brazilian Magistrates held their second International Congress in the United Kingdom from 23 May to 2 June, 2016. After a series of events in London, up to 200 delegates headed to Scotland as guests of events in Parliament House, the WS Library, Edinburgh University and Stirling University.</p><p align="justify">Information disclosed by the Judicial Office confirmed 180 judges from Brazil were serenaded at plush conferences and expensive dinners by <a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals &amp; tax avoidance" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html"><strong><u>Scottish judges who themselves hold financial stakes in companies also accused of bribery and inciting corruption around the world</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Also on Scottish judges shareholdings list is mining favourite<strong> </strong><a title="Brazil prosecutors file $58 billion lawsuit against BHP Billiton-owned mining company over fatal dam spill" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-04/brazil-files-billion-dollar-lawsuit-against-vale-bhp-for-dam/7381824"><strong><u>BHP Biliton, who are linked to a massive lawsuit for $44 billion over the collapse of iron ore tailings dam in Bento Rodrigues, a subdistrict of Mariana, Brazil - which killed at least 17 people</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here : <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><strong><u>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</u></strong></a>.</p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-judicial-service-how-scotlands.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)56tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-8480703819966721874Wed, 26 Oct 2016 21:19:00 +00002016-10-26T22:40:32.191+01:00Judiciary of ScotlandLord CarlowayLord GillPetition 1458register of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish ParliamentUK Supreme CourtUS Supreme CourtOPENNESS? LORD, NO: The day Scotland's former top judge lashed out at America’s justice system, accusing US judges of financial ties to corporations & vested interests<p align="justify"><em><a title="JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges&rsquo; secret wealth &amp; interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill&rsquo;s evidence as &ldquo;passive aggression&rdquo;" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7UW5ROTBXMzZxSVk" width="358" align="left" height="483"></a>US justices base their careers on corporate funds – Lord Gill</em>.<strong> DURING </strong>a meeting at the Scottish Parliament almost one year ago, Scotland’s former Lord President &amp; Lord Justice General launched a scathing attack on the judiciary of the United States of America, accusing top US judges of harbouring financial ties to corporations &amp; vested interests – in order to ensure their election to judicial office. <p align="justify">The damning accusations against top US Justices – aired in an open session of the Scottish Parliament by Scotland’s longest serving judge - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> (74) – were not in response to an international incident or some complicated round of diplomacy and trade negotiations. <p align="justify">Rather, Brian Gill’s pulverising attack on the integrity of the judiciary of the United States - looked upon by many as the world’s most powerful democracy – were in response to <a title="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests" href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>a proposal for Scottish judges to register their interests</u></strong></a> – in the very same way judges in the United States and other international jurisdictions are required to register their interests. <p align="justify">Answering questions from MSP Angus MacDonald, Lord Gill quipped: <strong>“I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is.”</strong> <p align="justify">Responding to some measure of astonishment, Gill charged in and blew apart the integrity of his judicial colleagues in the US, stating: “<strong>I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts.”</strong> <p align="justify">Judicial Transparency, US style, or for that – judicial transparency from any other jurisdiction, was not welcome in Scotland - according to Lord Gill. <p align="justify">And Gill was the expert. For as one of the shortest term serving Lord Presidents’ of modern times – he spent much of his three year term battling against proposals to require Scotland’s elite, secretive judiciary to declare their significant wealth and connections to the professions &amp; big business as called for in <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">However, worse was to come from the notoriously anti-transparency judge, who<strong> </strong><a title="COURT SECRETS: Scotland&rsquo;s anti-transparency top judge Lord Brian Gill threatens media censorship in row over reporting access to court papers" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/court-secrets-scotlands-anti.html"><strong><u>once threatened to deny journalists access to court documents</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Lord Gill – who has since relocated to a posh seat on the <a title="UK Supreme Court" href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/"><strong><u>UK Supreme Court</u></strong></a> based in London - was not content with lambasting US justices he accused of cuddling up to corporations for campaign cash. <p align="justify">In response to further questions from the Petitions Committee, Lord Gill opened up another sneering line of attack on US judges, castigating the highly valued nomination hearings of US Supreme Court justices which form a key part of the judicial process in America and are widely available to watch online, with examples such as the <a title="Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings from PBS NewsHour and EMK Institute" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfUB7PgW4o"><strong><u>nomination process for famed Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Lashing out again at the almost alien concept of judicial transparency coming to Scotland, Lord Gill recoiled: <strong>“I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views.”</strong> <p align="justify">However, only weeks before Gill made his outburst against the judicial selection process in the United States, the behind closed doors approach to selecting Scottish judges – who dodge questions on their own ties to vested interests inside and outside the legal profession, was revealed in a media investigation here: <a title="TO PLAY THE PRESIDENT: Transparency, diversity &amp; judicial reform on the cards as hunt begins for Scotland&rsquo;s next top judge &amp; Lord President of the Court of Session" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/to-play-president-transparency.html"><strong><u>TO PLAY THE PRESIDENT: Transparency, diversity &amp; judicial reform on the cards as hunt begins for Scotland’s next top judge &amp; Lord President of the Court of Session</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">And, investigations by DOI revealed Scotland’s judiciary are themselves, no stranger to financial ties to vested interests and big banks, reported in further detail here: <a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals, mercenaries, tax avoidance &amp; banks fined for financial markets manipulation" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html"><strong><u>JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals</u></strong></a> and here: <a title="COURT BANKING, M&rsquo;LORD: &lsquo;Unworkable&rsquo; register of judicial interests reveals top judges&rsquo; financial links to world of big money, insurance giants, vested interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/09/court-banking-mlord-unworkable-register.html"><strong><u>COURT BANKING, M’LORD: ‘Unworkable’ register of judicial interests reveals top judges’ financial links to world of big money, insurance giants, vested interests</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">No one would ever claim the US justice system, or any justice system was perfect. <p align="justify">It is true, US justices do have links to corporations, and regular coverage appears in the media. <p align="justify">However at least in the United States and other international jurisdictions where registers of interests are required of the judiciary, court users, elected politicians, the media and public have the opportunity by right of law and expectation of transparency - to inspect their judiciary on a much more detailed level than in Scotland. <p align="justify">And, this is what makes the difference. Transparency. An altogether simple case to present. Nothing more complicated than openness itself. <p align="justify">Beware then, those who answer questions on transparency with hand gestures, demands on how to frame the questions being put to them, or using an underlying tone of aggression. <p align="justify">Video footage of Lord Gill’s meticulous, if short derision of judicial colleagues in the United States made clear the former Lord President’s opinion of judges who are required by law and due process to follow a path more transparent than his, and his colleagues within the Judiciary of Scotland. <p align="center"><a title="Lord Brian Gill slams US judges - Top Scots judge claims US judiciary elected by vested interests" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw_PgxwIoxI"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill slams US judges - Top Scots judge claims US judiciary elected by vested interests</u></strong></a> <p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gw_PgxwIoxI?rel=0" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe><p align="justify"><strong>Official Record: Petitions Committee 10 November 2015</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Angus MacDonald:</strong> Thank you. It was important to get that fundamental view on the record. <p align="justify">What is your view of the fact that the United States of America has successfully introduced a register of judicial interests? Has the system in the States increased public confidence in the judiciary? <p align="justify"><strong>Lord Gill:</strong> I do not know that we would want to have a judiciary here that is like the one in the United States. It depends on your personal point of view. I do not give you my view, but I am sure that you can guess what it is. <p align="justify"><strong>Angus MacDonald:</strong> I will not pick up on that particular point. <p align="justify">Has there been any evidence on the impact that the US system has had on the independence of judges or the way in which the media treats judges in the USA? <p align="justify"><strong>Lord Gill:</strong> I would be very sorry to see a judiciary in which candidates ran for election and in which candidates' election campaigns were based on fundraising from companies and corporations that might be litigants in their courts. I would also be very sorry if the day ever came where, before appointment, judges had to come before a committee of this honourable legislature for confirmation and for examination of their political, ethical and social views. <p align="justify">The full evidence session held at the Scottish Parliament with Lord Gill on 7 November 2015 can be viewed here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMlBc9XNxrc"><strong><u>Evidence of Lord Gill before the Scottish Parliament 10 November 2015</u></strong></a> with a full report and transcript of the meeting here:<strong> </strong><a title="JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges&rsquo; secret wealth &amp; interests - Petitions Committee Chief brands Lord Gill&rsquo;s evidence as &ldquo;passive aggression&rdquo;" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><strong><u>JUDGE ANOTHER DAY: Sparks fly as top judge demands MSPs close investigation on judges’ secret wealth &amp; interests</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">In between refusing to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Lord Brian Gill spent his time on international travel, and giving a lecture on judicial ethics while on a taxpayer funded state visit to Qatar – a country not known as a haven of transparency or human rights. <p align="justify">Lord Gill’s Qatar expedition funded by public cash is reported in further detail here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/lord-jet-set-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html"><strong><u>LORD JET SET: Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">A year on from the confrontation between Lord Gill and the Scottish Parliament – only after two refusals to give evidence – MSPs await to hear from Scotland’s current top judge <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> – who, like his predecessor, given an equally hostile opinion on the very notion of judicial transparency and requirements of judges to declare their interests. <p align="justify">A recent report on Lord Carloway’s opposition to judicial transparency can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">The proposals before the Scottish Parliament received cross party backing from MSPs during a full debate at Holyrood during October 2014 - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>Debating the Judges</u></strong></a> - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world. <p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a>. http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/openness-lord-no-day-scotlands-former.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-7066625728072283737Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:38:00 +00002016-10-25T16:38:37.206+01:00Houses of the OireachtasJudiciary of ScotlandLord CarlowayPetition 1458register of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesRepublic of IrelandScottish ParliamentSenator Victor BoyhanJUDICIAL REGISTER: Calls for Republic of Ireland to create a register of judges’ interests - Senator to table motion on “culture of openness & transparency” for judiciary<p align="justify"><em><a title="Houses of the Oireachtas to hear motion on register of judicial interests" href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7UTJIVnBHdzZvb00" width="358" align="left" height="483"></a>Ireland’s Parliament to hear motion calling for judges’ register.</em> <strong>THE REPUBLIC</strong> of Ireland’s Parliament – the upper house Seanad of the <a title="Houses of the Oireachtas" href="http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/"><strong><u>Houses of the Oireachtas</u></strong></a> – will be the setting for a motion calling for Ireland’s judiciary to be subject to a full register of interests, similar in nature to widely backed proposals currently being investigated by the Scottish Parliament - <strong></strong><a href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The <a title="Senator to table motion calling for register of judges&rsquo; interests" href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/senator-to-table-motion-calling-for-register-of-judges-interests-1.2771824"><strong><u>Irish Times recently reported</u></strong></a> on moves to create more judicial transparency in Ireland, led by independent Senator Victor Boyhan – who intends to table a motion calling for the introduction of a register of judges’ interests to <strong>“foster a culture of openness and transparency”</strong>as well as confidence -&nbsp; in the judiciary.</p><p align="justify">At present in Ireland, as is in Scotland, there is no requirement for members of the judiciary to declare their interests.</p><p align="justify">Court users in Ireland must, like those in Scotland, rely on a system of archaic oaths written by the judiciary - where judges promise [themselves] to execute their office “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man”.</p><p align="justify">The proposal by Senator Boyhan - to increase judicial transparency in the Republic of Ireland come after Ireland’s top judge - Chief Justice Mrs Justice Susan Denham - recommended the establishment of a judicial council – first suggested by the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Ethics in 2000.</p><p align="justify">The creation of such a council for Ireland, would be similar to the ruling Scottish Court &amp; Tribunal Service Board – the <a title="STILL BANKING, M&rsquo;LORDS: Judicial quango in charge of Scotland&rsquo;s Courts &amp; Tribunals remains mired in financial links to Banks, investment funds, insurance, property &amp; corporate vested interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/still-banking-mlords-judicial-quango-in.html"><strong><u>powerful judge-led legal vested interests quango</u></strong></a> which controls Scotland's courts and must approve all policy or changes in relation to how courts and tribunals function.</p><p align="justify">Proposals currently on the table envisage the membership of any newly created ‘Judicial Council’ in the Republic of Ireland would consist of the Chief Justice and ordinary judges of the Supreme Court; and the Presidents of the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court and ordinary judges of those courts.</p><p align="justify">The Judicial Council will be tasked to “develop a code of conduct for judges, as well as oversee and support their training and develop a complaint structure for litigants” and promote “excellence in the exercise by judges of their judicial functions”.</p><p align="justify">Speaking to the Irish Times, Senator Boyhan said the Government should introduce such a council, as well as a judicial appointments commission, promised in the programme for government, and intended to reform the selection of judges.</p><p align="justify">He called for a consultation process to begin with the judiciary on the establishment of a register of interests for judges.<strong> “I, personally, would be uncomfortable if a judge was a member of a Masonic lodge, for example, or other secret society, and I think that should be declared, as should shares in financial institutions,”</strong> he said.</p><p align="justify">Mr Boyhan said, in the UK, judges have been found to have conflicts of interest in some cases.</p><p align="justify">Earlier this week, Senator Boyhan gave a speech in the Irish Parliament on the creation of a Judicial Council: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l36GhkGC2Ik"><strong><u>Senator Victor Boyhan - Creation of Judicial Council</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">A report by Diary of Injustice last week revealed links between Scotland’s current top judge – Lord Carloway – who opposes a judicial transparency register – and members of Ireland’s judiciary.</p><p align="justify">A Freedom of Information disclosure from the Scottish Courts &amp; Tribunals Service (SCTS) revealed details of a junket taken by Lord Carloway and <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lady%20Dorrian"><strong><u>Lady Dorrian</u></strong></a> to Ireland – to meet senior figures of the judicial establishment in 2014 - <a title="IT&rsquo;S DUBLIN, M&rsquo;LADY: FOI probe results in Judicial Office adding Lady Dorrian to Lord Carloway&rsquo;s 'research' junket on Ireland&rsquo;s criminal justice system" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/its-dublin-mlady-foi-probe-results-in.html"><strong><u>IT’S DUBLIN, M’LADY: FOI probe results in Judicial Office adding Lady Dorrian to Lord Carloway’s 'research' junket on Ireland’s criminal justice system</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">A <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7T2pOaVNvZ2JVaHM/"><strong><u>programme for the visit</u></strong></a> also revealed Lord Carloway met up with two senior Irish judges in a Chinese restaurant to discuss the ‘efficiencies of courts’. </p><p align="justify">And a powerful editorial in <a title="The Sunday Times" href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/"><strong><u>The Sunday Times</u></strong></a> newspaper of 28 June 2015, supports the creation of a register of judicial interests in the Republic of Ireland.</p><p align="justify">The editorial states: “<strong>Ireland, as a nation, is a great deal more sceptical than it used to be, hardened by corruption in the body politic, irresponsible behaviour on the part of banks, and appalling revelations of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. There are a few professions, however, whose reputations have emerged largely unscathed from the non-stop diet of negative news engulfing the country for the past decade. The medical profession, teachers and professors consistently score highly with the public. So does the judiciary, and that is why potential conflicts of interest involving judges is an important issue.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Sunday Times has identified a number of judges who hold shares in companies traded on the stock exchange. There is no law preventing judges from holding investments, nor should there be, but we are long overdue regulations requiring them to declare their interests and those of their close family members. We know from experience that conflicts of interest do arise.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Within it’s editorial, the Sunday Times - a powerful supporter of transparency alluded to further evidence access international jurisdictions - where asset declaring registers for judges already exist.</p><p align="justify">The editorial continued: “<strong>We cannot think of a single reason why judges should not be required to sign up to a register of interests in the same way that elected politicians must make public their interests through the Standards in Public Office Commission. Indeed, Ireland is a laggard in this regard. Of 137 jurisdictions surveyed by the World Bank, almost 58% had asset-declaration regimes in place for all levels of judges and prosecutors.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Judges, quite rightly, are independent of the executive, so any system of asset declaration would most likely be self-regulating. So long as a register was transparent, robust and available for scrutiny by the public, this should not be an issue.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The ideal base for such a register would be the long-promised Judicial Council. An interim council has been established but the coalition has not prioritised legislation that would formalise the body. This delay does the profession a disservice. The Judicial Council is a priority, as is a judicial register of interests that would copperfasten the profession's reputation for operating to the highest ethical standards.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Editorials from Scottish Newspapers have also featured judicial transparency supporting editorials on proposals to create a register of judicial interests in Scotland - available to readers here: <a title="Scotland&rsquo;s top judge throws Scotland Act at MSPs in transparency battle as Lord Gill refuses to give evidence at Scottish Parliament on judge&rsquo;s secret wealth, connections for register of judicial interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/06/scotlands-top-judge-throws-scotland-act.html"><strong><u>Sunday Mail - No justice if it cannot be seen</u></strong></a> and here: <a title="Scotland&rsquo;s top judge, a private meeting to dodge remit of full Holyrood Petitions Committee questions and the call for a register of judicial interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/scotlands-top-judge-private-meeting-to.html"><strong><u>Sunday Herald - Judges should not be above scrutiny</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify"><strong>HOLYROOD PROBE ON JUDICIAL INTEREST REGISTER CONTINUES:</strong></p><p align="justify">Scotland’s top judge – Lord President <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> has been invited to appear before the Scottish Parliament to face questions on his opposition to proposals requiring the judiciary to declare their interests. <p align="justify">The invitation to Lord Carloway has been issued by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee - who are conducting a four year investigation on a proposal calling for judges to be required to declare their vast and varied interests including their backgrounds, personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land interests, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world. <p align="justify">A full debate held at the Scottish Parliament in October 2014 saw MSPs from across the political spectrum support a motion backing the judicial transparency proposals, reported with video footage and the official record, here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>Debating the Judges</u></strong></a> <p align="justify">A recent report on Lord Carloway’s opposition to judicial transparency can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a>. http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/judicial-register-calls-for-republic-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-5223373850251087881Fri, 21 Oct 2016 14:50:00 +00002016-10-21T15:50:14.061+01:00access to justiceCourt FeesCrown OfficeFaculty of AdvocatesLaw Society of ScotlandScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish GovernmentAXIS TO JUSTICE: ‘Treat lawyers like Hospitals & Police’, Democracy ‘at risk’ if state refuses to fund litigants - Law Society & Faculty of Advocates attack plans to make secretive, slow Scots courts self funding<p align="justify"><em><a title="NO MONEY NO JUSTICE: Slow, costly courts, &pound;220K a year judges on junkets &amp; justice staff on the take prompt Scottish Government proposal for 25% hike in court fees" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/07/no-money-no-justice-slow-costly-courts.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7R2t2MTl2eHhySTA" width="358" align="left" height="496"></a>Fund lawyers like nurses &amp; public services - say lawyers</em>.<strong> DURING</strong>&nbsp;<strong>TIMES</strong> of financial crisis, Brexit woes and growing demands on nurses, doctors, the NHS, Police, education and everything else. public services should be forced to take an equal seat to the spiralling billions of pounds of public cash lavished on lawyers, the courts and legal aid – according to claims from the legal profession.</p><p align="justify">The demand for equal treatment to public cash comes from the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a> and the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> – who, along with other legal vested interests - are calling for the state to fund all court actions and treat lawyers in the same ‘deserving of public funds’ category as medical care provided by the National Health Service, education, social care and Police.</p><p align="justify">The latest call from the Law Society of Scotland to increase - by millions more - the flow of public cash into legal business and struggling lawyers pockets - comes in answer to<strong> </strong><a title="NO MONEY NO JUSTICE: Slow, costly courts, &pound;220K a year judges on junkets &amp; justice staff on the take prompt Scottish Government proposal for 25% hike in court fees" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/07/no-money-no-justice-slow-costly-courts.html"><strong><u>plans by the Scottish Government to hike court fees by up to 25%</u></strong></a> and turn the closed shop, secretive, slow and unjustly expensive Scottish courts run by the <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS) into a self funding operation.</p><p align="justify">However, under the guise of defending ‘access to justice’ – loosely translated to ‘public cash for lawyers’ - the Law Society state in their response: <strong>“Plans to introduce the full recovery of civil court costs in Scotland would be damaging to access to justice, particularly for those bringing forward personal injury cases and more vulnerable people.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The <a title="Law Society of Scotland&rsquo;s response to the Scottish Government's consultation on Court Fees" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7YXpUX0M2WUZFcEU/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland’s response to the Scottish Government's consultation on Court Fees</u></strong></a> goes on to state “<strong>any move towards full cost recovery should be avoided”</strong> and <strong>“that the state has a duty to help people in achieve ‘equality of arms’ in the courtroom.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The Law Society also claims that a proposal to introduce a 24% rise in court fees would be <strong>‘unjust and unjustifiable’</strong>.</p><p align="justify">Syd Smith, from the Law Society of Scotland’s Remuneration Committee, representing the views of pursuers’ solicitors, said: “<strong>We believe it is essential that the courts should provide an independent and impartial forum for resolving disputes between people or organisations and that the state has a duty to help those involved have equality of arms when their cases go to court.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The Law Society has said that any new system for court fees would have to ensure they were proportionate, taking into account Lord Gill’s Review of the Scottish Civil Courts, and the findings of Sheriff Taylor in his Review of Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Mr Smith said: “<strong>We think the focus of any review of court fees should be on redressing the balance between claimants and defenders in personal injury cases. However if the government’s aim is to have a system where 100% of the cost of the courts are covered by fees paid by those involved in the actions lodged, it will be vital to have proportionate fee levels. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The consultation option to introduce a 24% rise in court fees would represent an unjust and unjustifiable increase which would create a very real barrier to access to justice for claimants especially vulnerable people who have suffered life changing personal injuries. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong> “Any change to the current system also needs to recognise that there is not a level playing field between personal injury claimants and the insurance companies who are the defenders in those claims. Any changes which fail to recognise this problem risk widening the existing gap.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Going a little further, and backing up their legal vested interest colleagues, the <a title="Faculty of Advocates response to the Court Fees consultation" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WElQTmdOM0NlSzA/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates response to the Court Fees consultation</u></strong></a> claims democracy could not function if the state did not pay for litigants to sue everyone under the sun in the same way convicted mass murderers and fraudsters empty hundreds of millions of pounds of Criminal legal aid from the public purse.</p><p align="justify">A submission from the Faculty of Advocates to the Court Fees consultation states:<strong> “The civil justice system should be funded by the state from general taxation…(it) is a cornerstone of a democratic state…(and) is vital to every citizen, whether or not he or she ever becomes a litigant,”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“No part of our democratic society could function without our civil law being maintained by the operation of our courts. There is no warrant to shift the cost of the courts entirely on to litigants when the whole of society benefits from them,”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“As a matter of principle, the civil justice system should be funded by the state, not litigants,” it said.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The civil justice system is a cornerstone of a democratic state. It is the duty of the state to provide an accessible civil justice system…To the benefit of society at large, the law is made, declared or clarified daily by the civil courts. The civil justice system is vital to every citizen, whether or not he or she ever becomes a litigant. The benefits to society justify it being funded in full from general taxation.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“Many state-provided services are funded from general revenue, on the basis that these services benefit the whole of society, and not just those in immediate need of them. Our society accepts that, without regard to their means to pay, individuals should have access to medical care, and that every sort of person should be served by the police and emergency services.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The Scottish Government has recognised that charging tuition fees to students limits access to higher education for many and that charging for prescriptions might deter people from seeking medical assistance. The Faculty considers that access to the courts is of equal importance.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Faculty believed that the proposed increases would be likely to impede access to justice, and that requiring a person to pay expensive court fees could be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects access to a court.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The funding of the civil justice system by litigants rather than the state does not protect access to justice, it hinders it.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“If even a few people are deterred from litigating a good claim or defence, that is seriously damaging justice. There may be many more than a few who are so deterred, of course,” said the Faculty.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The system of court fees exemptions is inadequate to protect access to justice…the thresholds for exemptions are set very low.”</strong></p><p align="justify">So, the next time you need emergency medical care, the Police, education for your children, help with homelessness or any other public service - remember not to call the well trained and dedicated people who staff these vital arteries of life.</p><p align="justify">Instead, call a lawyer and insist your taxes, your hard earned savings (if any) and dwindling assets are handed over to fund a solicitor, court clerks, a struggling Sheriff on £160K a year or a £230K a year Court of Session judge – just like the Law Society of Scotland said – because you know – lawyers have your interests and ‘access to justice’ as their priority.</p><p align="justify"><strong>GIVE CROWN OFFICE MORE MONEY – Law Society to MSPs.</strong></p><p align="justify">In a second take on the more public cash for lawyers approach, earlier this week the Law Society of Scotland also demanded more public cash be given to the struggling <a href="http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk"><strong><u>Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service</u></strong></a> (COPFS) – who are forced to eek out an existence on a staggering <strong>£112 million a year</strong>.</p><p align="justify">In <a title="written evidence to a Scottish Parliament Justice Committee inquiry" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7RFU3WWZHaUFIYWc/"><strong><u>written evidence to a Scottish Parliament Justice Committee inquiry</u></strong></a> into the workings of Scotland’s “<a title="INQUIRY OF THE CROWN: Scottish Parliament&rsquo;s Justice Committee launch inquiry into crime fighting ability of &lsquo;institutionally corrupt&rsquo; Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/inquiry-of-crown-scottish-parliaments.html"><strong><u>Institutionally corrupt</u></strong></a>” Crown Office, the Law Society of Scotland has said that consideration will be needed to ensure that the service provided by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) and others is accessible and inclusive for all members of society.</p><p align="justify">In its response to an Inquiry on the role and purpose of the COPFS, the Society also stated that all participants involved in the criminal justice system have responded to a number of reforms during a time of significant financial pressure.</p><p align="justify">Ian Cruickshank, convener of the Law Society of Scotland Criminal Law Committee, said: <strong>“It’s important that the criminal justice system evolves and makes use of new technology which can help improve the service particularly when there continues to be financial pressures alongside increasing numbers of serious crime reported to the COPFS and legislative developments.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“However it is important to be aware of the potential impact on core services at a local level and on access to justice. There will need to be careful consideration on how best to ensure the service provided by the COPFS and others within the criminal justice system is accessible and inclusive to all member of society.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“Lack of resources has had an impact on the preparation and the time available for presenting criminal prosecutions in our courts. The number of prosecutions resulting in court disposals has decreased in the past five years, however the complexity of the impact of recent legislation, and the complexity of certain types of cases reported, means more preparation and court time is required.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Previous reports on how much the Law Society of Scotland values your ‘access to justice’ and their vested interests, can be found in the archive of reports, here: <a title="Law Society of Scotland" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Law%20Society%20of%20Scotland"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/axis-to-justice-treat-lawyers-like.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-1627376348420971863Thu, 20 Oct 2016 17:23:00 +00002016-10-20T18:23:29.953+01:00DublinFreedom of InformationJudiciary of ScotlandLady DorrianLord CarlowayLord PresidentOverseas travel of Scottish judgesScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish Information CommissionerIT’S DUBLIN, M’LADY: FOI probe results in Judicial Office adding Lady Dorrian to Lord Carloway’s 'research' junket on Ireland’s criminal justice system<p align="justify"><em><a title="STOP SECRETS: Scottish Court Service staff switched travel destinations of Lord Justice Clerk from UK to Ireland in bid to avoid Freedom of Information row" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/10/stop-secrets-scottish-"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7aElYNjVvTm81cEE" width="358" align="left" height="512"></a>Court staff add second judge to Ireland judicial junket</em>. <strong>THE SECOND</strong> most powerful judge in Scotland - <a title="Lady Dorrian" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lady%20Dorrian"><strong><u>Lady Dorrian</u></strong></a> - the <a title="M'LADY JUSTICE CLERK: Lady Dorrian becomes first female judge appointed to position of Lord Justice Clerk - second most powerful judge in Scotland" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/04/mlady-justice-clerk-lady-dorrian.html"><strong><u>first ever female judge serving as Lord Justice Clerk</u></strong></a>, has been added to a 2014 judicial junket to Dublin - in which court staff initially claimed was solely attended by Scotland’s current Lord President - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a>. </p><p align="justify">And, <a title="Evidence and Procedure Review - Dublin 25-26 March 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7T2pOaVNvZ2JVaHM/view"><strong><u>new details since released</u></strong></a> for the ‘fact finding’ judicial junket - also reveal Lord Carloway met two Irish senior judges in a Chinese restaurant - to discuss ‘efficiencies in the courts’. <p align="justify">The addition of Lady Dorrian to Lord Carloway’s ‘fact finding’ trip only came about after the <a href="http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/"><strong><u>Scottish Information Commissioner</u></strong></a> (SIC) became involved in a dispute over the determined efforts of the <a href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/judiciary"><strong><u>Judiciary of Scotland</u></strong></a> and <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS) to conceal details, destinations and the costs of UK &amp; <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Overseas%20travel%20of%20Scottish%20judges"><strong><u>judicial overseas travel junkets</u></strong></a> from Freedom of Information enquiries. <p align="justify">In October 2014, <a title="STOP SECRETS: Scottish Court Service staff switched travel destinations of Lord Justice Clerk from UK to Ireland in bid to avoid Freedom of Information row" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/10/stop-secrets-scottish-court-service.html"><strong><u>DOI reported that an investigation by the Information Commissioner</u></strong></a> received evidence court officials hurriedly switched the travel destinations of Scotland’s second most powerful judge – the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Carloway, after journalists queried an FOI disclosure, asking for further details of a journey. <p align="justify">Lord Carloway – who was at the time Lord Justice Clerk and has since been elevated to the top post of Lord President earning £222,862.00 a year, was listed in a 2014 FOI disclosure by the Scottish Court Service: <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Z0hkTm9zaDhmWW8/"><u><strong>Overseas Travel of Scotland’s Judges 2013-2014</strong></u></a><strong> </strong>as having taken three taxpayer funded trips – <strong>a six day trip to Vancouver, Canada costing £5,820.16</strong>, <strong>a two day trip to Dijon, France, with a claimed cost of £59.15</strong> and a<strong> two day trip initially listed as Evidence &amp; Procedure Review Study Visit costing £232.93</strong>. <p align="justify">The Scottish Court Service was then contacted by journalists who asked officials to provide a destination of Lord Carloway’s Evidence &amp; Procedure Review Study Visit. In response, a senior SCS official said<strong> “Lord Carloway attended the event in Bristol.”</strong> <p align="justify">When journalists again contacted the Scottish Court Service asking why one domestic UK trip had seemingly been disclosed when court officials claimed it was too expensive to publish the UK only trips, the same official replied <strong>“I queried this with the Judicial Office for Scotland who have asked me to pass on their apologies.&nbsp; Lord Carloway actually attended the event in Dublin and not in Bristol.</strong> <p align="justify">The Judicial Office for Scotland ended further enquiries at the time with the statement <strong>“We have checked the information that we provided and we have nothing further to add.”</strong> <p align="justify">The switch of Lord Carloway’s destination during a trip taken in March 2014 – from Bristol to Dublin only came about after court staff realised they had previously claimed to journalists, and more recently to the Scottish Information Commissioner, the SCS did not hold data on judges trips inside the UK. <p align="justify">Since the probe by the Scottish Information Commissioner, new documents issued to journalists after a probe lasting several weeks finally revealed: <strong>“Lord Carloway and Lady Dorrian visited Dublin to research the Irish criminal justice system to inform the on-going SCS review of evidence and procedure in Scotland, and were accompanied by an SCS Director with lead responsibility for this review work. They flew from Edinburgh to Dublin on the evening of Monday 24 March, and returned on the evening of Wednesday 26 March. They stayed at the Ashling Hotel, Parkgate Street, Dublin on the nights of 24 and 25 March.”</strong> <p align="justify">The ‘omission’ of Lady Dorrian from initial documents released in 2014 was blamed by court staff on murky arrangements for judicial air travel which allowed judges to book air tickets at public expense at their own discretion. <p align="justify">However, claims by the Judicial Office that new travel rules introduced by former Lord President <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> put an end to judges helping themselves to tens of thousands of pounds of air flights and trips have since been proved wrong - after continuing investigations revealed further international air junkets, reported here: <a title="LORDING IT MORE OPENLY: Scotland&rsquo;s obsessively secretive judiciary reveal overseas junkets - after media spotlight on judges&rsquo; international air travel circuit increases judicial transparency" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/07/lording-it-more-openly-scotlands.html"><strong><u>LORDING IT MORE OPENLY: Scotland’s obsessively secretive judiciary reveal overseas junkets</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The latest crop of jet set junkets for judges reinforce suspicions highly paid Scottish judges on up to £220K a year are spending more time in the air and abroad, than attending to their judicial duties in the courts.</p><p align="justify">Challenged on the switch of destinations and the addition of Lady Dorrian to Lord Carloway’s ‘fact finding’ trip, a spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: <strong>“I have now had the opportunity to look into this.&nbsp; The error you have highlighted occurred because the booking was not made by the Judicial Office.&nbsp; We have now amended our records.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“As you are aware, the Lord President issued new guidance to all judiciary earlier this year in respect of international travel and attendance at conferences.&nbsp; All requests for funding should be sought only from the Judicial Office.&nbsp; This will help ensure such errors do not occur in the future.”</strong> <p align="justify">Asked to confirm which trip was not booked by the judicial office – Lady Dorrian or Lord Carloway (or both), a spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: “<strong>Both. To be clear‎ the costs of the trip (flights, hotel) for both Lady Dorrian and Lord Carloway did not come out of the Judicial Office budget. The costs associated with travel and subsistence do. Therefore we knew about Lord Carloway's trip but incorrectly recorded that information.</strong> <p align="justify">A <a title="Evidence and Procedure Review - trip to Dublin 25-26 March 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7T2pOaVNvZ2JVaHM/"><strong><u>programme for the visit</u></strong></a>, issued after the addition of Lady Dorrian to the trip, reveals Lord Carloway met up with two senior Irish judges in a Chinese takeaway to discuss the efficiencies of courts. <p align="justify">An entry in the programme for Tuesday 25 March 2014 states<strong>: 7:30pm - Meeting with The Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Charleton and His Honour Judge Tony Hunt&nbsp; to discuss&nbsp; “The Working Group to Identify and Report on Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System of the Courts” Venue: Good World Chinese Restaurant, 18 South Great Georges Street, Dublin 2.</strong></p><p align="justify">However, Lady Dorrian’s name does not appear anywhere in the issued documents for the trip to Dublin.</p><p align="justify"><strong><a title="Evidence and Procedure Review visit to Dublin 25-26 March 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7T2pOaVNvZ2JVaHM/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7cnBqYVpuNWRhWHc" width="280" align="left" height="390"></a>Evidence and Procedure Review – visit to Dublin, 25-26 March 2014 Programme Date: Tuesday 25thMarch 2014</strong></p><p align="justify">Arrive to be met by Ms. Elisha D'Arcy, Protocol Officer, Courts Service Venue: Great Hall, Criminal Courts of Justice Parkgate Street, Dublin 8</p><p align="justify">Tour of Criminal Courts of Justice with Ms. Lisa Scott and Ms. Kelly Mackey, Judicial Researchers <p align="justify">Discussion with Ms. Kelly Mackey &amp; Ms. Lisa Scott, Judicial Researchers working on analysis of relevant Legislation and Law Reform documents Venue: Court No. 13, 4 th Floor, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Meeting with The Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, High Court, The Hon. Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy, High Court, His Honour Judge Patrick McCartan, Circuit Court, Judge Patricia McNamara, District Court and Ms. Elisha D'Arcy to discuss, inter alia, case management, how the volume of cases is managed, any difficulties in ensuring cases are processed in good time - problems with "churn" in the system, with hearings having to be adjourned/continued etc Venue: Conference room, 9th Floor, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Meeting with Mr. Noel Rubotham, Head of Reform and Development, Courts Service to discuss relevant initiatives in the area of criminal procedure reform, including pre-trial case management Venue: Conference room, 9 th Floor, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Meeting with Ms. Geraldine Hurley, Principal Officer, Courts Service to discuss the practicalities of giving Video Link evidence and observe/demonstrate Video Link evidence procedure/facilities Venue: 9 th Floor Conference room, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Observation of Central Criminal Court in session, The Hon. Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy presiding Venue: Court No. 10, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Observation of Circuit Criminal Court in session, His Honour Judge Patrick McCartan presiding Venue: Court No. 12, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Observation of District Criminal Court in session, Judge Patricia McNamara presiding Venue: Court No. 2, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Working Lunch hosted by: The Hon. Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, Chief Justice In attendance: The Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, The Hon. Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy, His Honour Judge Patrick McCartan, Judge Patricia McNamara, Mr. Brendan Ryan, CEO, Courts Service, Registrar, Ms. Elisha D'Arcy Venue: Conference Room 9 thFloor, Criminal Courts of Justice <p align="justify">Depart for Children Court Observation of Children Court in session, Judge John O'Connor presiding Venue: Children Court, Smithfield, Dublin 7 <p align="justify">Depart for Child Care/ Family Law Court Observation of Child Care Courts in session, Judge Brendan Toale and Judge Colin Daly and Her Honour Judge Rosemary Horgan, President of the District Court presiding Venue: Court No. 20, 40 and 49 Child Care Courts, Dolphin House, East Essex Street, Dublin 2 <p align="justify">Observation of Family Law Courts in session, Judge Marie Quirke and Judge Deirdre Gearty presiding Venue: Court No. 41 and 47 Family Law Courts, Dolphin House, East Essex Street <p align="justify">16.00p.m. - 17.00p.m. Discussion on Child Care Court and Family Law Court with Her Honour Judge Rosemary Horgan, President of the District Court Judge Marie Quirke, Judge Brendan Toale, Judge Colin Daly and Judge Deirdre Gearty with particular emphasis on interviewing children and taking evidence from children Venue: 3rd Floor conference room, Dolphin House <p align="justify">19.30p.m. Meeting with The Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Charleton and His Honour Judge Tony Hunt to discuss "The Working Group to Identify and Report on Efficiencies in the Criminal Justice System of the Courts" Venue: Good World Chinese Restaurant, 18 South Great Georges Street, Dublin 2. <p align="justify">Date: Wednesday 26thMarch 2014: 09.00 a.m. - 11.30 a.m. Meeting with Members of An Garda Siochana, led by Chief Superintendent Patrick Leahy, Dublin Metropolitan Region, North Central Division - Powerpoint Presentations</p><p align="justify">11.40a.m. Meeting with Ms. Clare Loftus, Director of Public Prosecutions, accompanied by Ms. Liz Howlin, Head of the Directing Division and Mr. Peter Mullan, Chief Prosecution Solicitor -<br>Venue: Office of the DPP, Infirmary Road, Dublin 7</p><p align="justify">13.00p.m. Working lunch with The Hon. Mr. Justice Peter Charleton, The Hon. Mr. Justice John Edwards, High Court, His Honour Judge Martin Nolan, Circuit Court, Judge John O’Connor, District Court and Ms. Elisha D’Arcy Venue: Conference Room 9thFloor, Criminal Courts of Justice</p><p align="justify">14. 00p. m. Meeting with Law Reform Commission Commissioners Ms. Finola Flanagan and Tom O'Malley, BL, Law Reform Commission - Venue: Criminal Courts of Justice, Parkgate Street, 5th floor (Room 503.6)</p><p align="justify">15.15p.m. Meeting with Mr. Jimmy Martin, Assistant Secretary, Criminal Law Reform Division, Department of Justice &amp; Law Reform to discuss the Department's planned legislative initiatives in this area in particular the development of a Criminal Procedure Bill dealing with certain pre-trial procedures, video link hearings and certain other matters. Venue: Criminal Courts of Justice, Parkgate Street, 5th floor (Room 503.6)</p><p align="justify">16.15 p.m. – 17.00p.m Meeting with Mr. Ken Murphy, Director General and Members of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland, Shalom Binchy (Committee Chair), James MacGuill (former Committee Chair and former President of the Law Society), Dara Robinson (another former Committee Chair) and Robert Purcell Venue: Criminal Courts of Justice, Parkgate Street, 5th floor (Room 503.6)</p><p align="justify">Previous articles on the judiciary’s use of public cash to fund judicial overseas junkets can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Overseas%20travel%20of%20Scottish%20judges"><strong><u>Overseas travel of Scottish judges</u></strong></a>.</p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/its-dublin-mlady-foi-probe-results-in.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-971303494895887295Fri, 07 Oct 2016 14:14:00 +00002016-10-07T15:54:18.732+01:00Judiciary of ScotlandLady SmithLord CarlowayLord GillPetition 1458register of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish ParliamentINTERESTS AMISS, M’LORD: Property, paid work, links to big business & professions not included in judges’ declarations on Courts & Tribunals Service Board register<p align="justify"><em><a title="STILL BANKING, M&rsquo;LORDS: Judicial quango in charge of Scotland&rsquo;s Courts &amp; Tribunals remains mired in financial links to Banks, investment funds, insurance, property &amp; corporate vested interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/still-banking-mlords-judicial-quango-in.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Z19ta0NkbVN2M0U" width="358" align="left" height="528"></a>Declarations in register reveal few details on judiciary.</em> <strong>THE LATEST </strong><a title="Register of Interests - Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7a0ZnbzhpQ3g0c1E/"><strong><u>declarations by a select few powerful judges</u></strong></a> who control the running of Scotland’s Courts – is more revealing in what is missing from the limited disclosures in the latest annual report of <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS).</p><p align="justify">Ruling over our courts in their ermine robes - in some cases decades longer than any Prime Minister could hope to remain in office – the handful of judicial declarations after years on the bench and millions in taxpayers cash - are even in some cases even less than newly minted msps cobble together in their first few weeks at Holyrood.</p><p align="justify">This year, Scotland’s current top judge, the Lord President &amp; Lord Justice General - Lord Carloway – (real name Colin Sutherland), has but one declaration (<strong>Trustee, Scottish Arts Club</strong>) – dwarfing the vast listing of directorships &amp; positions of his predecessor – Lord Brian Gill.</p><p align="justify"><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> (62) was appointed to the Court of Session since 2000. Sixteen years later, and now in the top job – his salary is currently listed in the <a title="UK Government guidance on judicial salaries as of 1 April 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dmZ0d2R3dVdEeFk/"><strong><u>UK Government guidance on judicial salaries as of 1 April 2016</u></strong></a> as £222,862.00.</p><p align="justify">Another judicial member of the SCTS Board - <strong></strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lady%20Smith"><strong><u>Lady Smith</u></strong></a> (61) was appointed to the Court of Session in 2001. Fifteen years later, her salary as a judge of the inner house of the Court of Session is listed by the UK Government as £204, 695.00.</p><p align="justify">Admittedly, Lady Smith has a few more declarations than her boss. Rt. Hon. Lady Smith:&nbsp; <strong>Chair and Trustee - Royal Scottish National Orchestra Foundation, President and Trustee - Friends of the Music of St Giles Cathedral, Honorary Bencher - Gray's Inn</strong></p><p align="justify"><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> (74) - appointed to the Court of Session in 1994, ‘retired’ from his judicial tenure in Scotland as Lord President 21 years later in June 2015 - on a salary of £220,665.00.</p><p align="justify">Rt. Hon. Lord Gill: (from 1 April to 31 May 2015)<strong> Director of Scottish Redundant Churches Trust, a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland (SC162884), Director of the Royal School of Church Music, a company limited by guarantee registered in England (Reg'd No 250031), President of the Royal Society for Home Relief to Incurable, Edinburgh, Trustee of the Columba Trust: a trust for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Endowment Trust: a trust for the benefit of RCS and its students, Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Trust: a trust for the benefit of the RCS and its students, Trustee of the Royal School of Church Music: a registered charity for the promotion of church music in the Christian Churches (Reg No 312828) Vice President of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, Chairman of Council, Royal School of Church Music</strong></p><p align="justify">Lord Gill’s roll of directorships fill out a page on their own, yet you get the feeling his name was only included in the 2016 version of the register to leave in some detail , mainly because if Brian Gill’s long list of interests were missing – as they should be, given Lord Gill left the role before the September 2015-16 period covered by the register - there would be little to read of the rest.</p><p align="justify">Far from being retired, Gill is still a judge, only now based at the UK Supreme Court in London, and is scheduled to hear a tax case appeal involving <a title="Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant)" href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0224.html"><strong><u>Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Appellant)</u></strong></a> in November.</p><p align="justify">Compared to registers of interest which apply to other public servants including elected politicians, the three Court of Session senators, three sheriffs and a Justice of the Peace declare – as the Judicial Office for Scotland will tell you - only what is required in terms of the rules – rules written and approved by, themselves.</p><p align="justify">A bit like you writing the rules of your own tax return or register of interest. </p><p align="justify">Think on, for a moment. If you wrote the rules, what would you pay in tax or declare as interests in a register? Right. Now you understand.</p><p align="justify">Comparing these ‘declarations’ with judges long legal careers and glowing biographies complete with not one hint of hardship, scandal, financial loss or deviation from a perfect business record – there is little trace of the millions of pounds of public cash paid in judicial salaries over the years. </p><p align="justify">And this is one of the blanks in the life of the judiciary which raises questions on what judges are so hostile about declaring in a fully published register of interests.</p><p align="justify">Put it this way - If you were paid around £200,000 public cash (and not forgetting pension perks) for ten or fifteen years, picked up work along the way and positions on powerful quangos, you could imagine picking up a few interests, properties, and so on over the years. Life would indeed, be a jolly.</p><p align="justify">There is, for example no trace of declarations which appear in registers required by other public sector workers – such as hospitality, paid outside work and other earnings, jobs, consultancies, speeches, connections, you name it they do it, and of course, the big one – property.</p><p align="justify">Lord Gill owned a plush £1.7m Victorian mansion in Edinburgh, yet not once in any version of the register from 2012 to now, did said mansion or at least a property value ever appear.</p><p align="justify">The same is true for all the other judges who have come and gone on the now renamed SCTS Board register. </p><p align="justify">Property? forget it. This paltry register for a few judges is not the place for transparency.</p><p align="justify">The lack of detail in someone’s life in terms of interests, and assets – is, perhaps as any HMRC investigator or clued up person may come to realise .. inconsistent with the subject’s receipt of significant sums over the course of time.</p><p align="justify">Reality Check. £40 million in public cash (along with any unlisted extras in that ever so dodgy Scottish budget) is lavished on Scotland’s judiciary every year. </p><p align="justify">£220K a year for just one judge - for years, well connected, investments, art, properties as grand as a Prince and more international travel junkets than James Bond.</p><p align="justify">Yet when the judiciary are asked questions about their interests, and to explain why their position is judges should not declare their interests like everyone else - every response ends with a carefully constructed threat, given out in a public arena, with no shame. </p><p align="justify">From shares in bribes companies Sheriffs to private banks &amp; hedge funds, and big wigs with big wings, little trace exists of the enormous sums of public cash and where it goes.</p><p align="justify">This seems a little unfair – for a collection of people who, at the swish of a pen, can change your life as you know it, public life as we know it, strike down legislation from our parliaments, or shut off your child’s life support – or even yours – if you have no one to speak for you.</p><p align="justify">Thus, the case is easy to present why those with the most power, must feel the full weight of transparency even more than the rest of us. Not rocket science, is it – M’Lud.</p><p align="justify">Compare – if you will -&nbsp; the judiciary’s £40 million or more a year and every year - to msps who may find themselves ordered to pay back hotel expenses.</p><p align="justify">Unpleasant for some, isn’t it -&nbsp; while a judge pitches up, demands a £5K bag of public cash to fly off to some mystery law conference at the other side of the world, everyone else must account for the last penny, and declare all their interests or face the possibly of an appearance in front of a judge who does not adhere to such indignities as transparency.</p><p align="justify">Easy therefore to understand, why the judiciary should be required to register their interests in full, like everyone else – rather than the scant declarations in the latest<strong> </strong><a title="Register of Interests Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7a0ZnbzhpQ3g0c1E/"><strong><u>Register of Interests published by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board</u></strong></a>:</p><p align="justify"><strong><a title="Register of Interests SCTS Board 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7a0ZnbzhpQ3g0c1E/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7czhQaG1JenIxek0" width="300" align="left" height="414"></a>Rt. Hon. Lord Gill: </strong>(from 1 April to 31 May 2015) <strong>Director of Scottish Redundant Churches Trust, a company limited by guarantee registered in Scotland (SC162884), Director of the Royal School of Church Music, a company limited by guarantee registered in England (Reg'd No 250031), President of the Royal Society for Home Relief to Incurable, Edinburgh, Trustee of the Columba Trust: a trust for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Endowment Trust: a trust for the benefit of RCS and its students, Trustee of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland Trust: a trust for the benefit of the RCS and its students, Trustee of the Royal School of Church Music: a registered charity for the promotion of church music in the Christian Churches (Reg No 312828) Vice President of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, Chairman of Council, Royal School of Church Music</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Rt. Hon. Lord Carloway: Trustee, Scottish Arts Club</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Rt. Hon. Lady Smith:&nbsp; Chair and Trustee - Royal Scottish National Orchestra Foundation, President and Trustee - Friends of the Music of St Giles Cathedral, Honorary Bencher - Gray's Inn</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Principal Duncan Murray: Commissioner, Northern Lighthouse Board, Trustee Kibble Education and Care Centre</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Iona McDonald: Deputy Lieutenant for Ayrshire and Arran, Partner in property rental firm</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff A Grant McCulloch: Chair West Fife Education Trust, Chair Relationship Scotland - Couple Counselling Fife, Committee Member Cammo Residents Association, Chair - Discipline Committee ICAS</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Johan Findlay JP OBE Honorary Sheriff Justice of the Peace</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Dr Joseph Morrow QC: Lord Lyon King of Arms, Member of Judicial Council, Trustee, Munday Trust, Dundee Trustee, Kidney Trust, Dundee Trustee, Tealing Community Hall Legal Assessor, South Episcopal Church President, Society of Messengers at Arms President, Scottish Genealogical Society Patron, Scottish Family History Society </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Dr Kirsty J Hood QC: Self Employed Advocate Regular ad hoc employment with the University of Edinburgh – delivering seminars on one of the LLB courses, Regular ad hoc employment with the University of Glasgow - delivering lectures/seminars on one of the LLB courses, Contributor of updates to “Scottish Lawyers Factbook” (W Green. Publishers), Clerk of Faculty - Faculty of Advocates (non-remunerated) Member of the Scottish Committee of Franco-British Lawyers Society (non- remunerated)</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Simon J D Catto: Member Gateley (Scotland) LLP: Head of Litigation, Member of Cornerstone Exchange LLP, Member of Cornerstone Exchange No2 LLP</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Professor R Hugh MacDougall: None Eriska Trust, Cunningham Trust, Cross Trust, St Columba’s Hospice, Visiting Professor University of Edinburgh</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Joe Al-Gharabally: Ernst &amp; Young</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Anthony McGrath: (from 1 April 2015 to 31 December 2015) Saltire Taverns Ltd, Consultation and mentoring assignment with Cantrell &amp; Cochrane PLC. This includes sitting on the commercial Board of a subsidiary called The Shepton Mallet Cider Mill based in Somerset.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Col. David McIlroy: (from 1 January 2016) Independent Prison Monitor</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Eric McQueen: Member of the Scottish Civil Justice Council</strong><br></p><p align="justify">In August this year, DOI reported on the shareholdings of members of the same SCTS Board, in an article here: <a title="STILL BANKING, M&rsquo;LORDS: Judicial quango in charge of Scotland&rsquo;s Courts &amp; Tribunals remains mired in financial links to Banks, investment funds, insurance, property &amp; corporate vested interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/still-banking-mlords-judicial-quango-in.html"><strong><u>STILL BANKING, M’LORDS: Judicial quango in charge of Scotland’s Courts &amp; Tribunals remains mired in financial links to Banks, investment funds, insurance, property &amp; corporate vested interests</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">The current <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Qi1SZG41OUh1TG8/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board Register of Shareholdings</u></strong></a> reveals the following declarations of shareholdings: <p align="justify"><strong>Lord President - Rt Hon Lord Carloway: None<br>Lord Justice Clerk - Rt Hon Lady Dorrian: None<br>President of Scottish Tribunals - Rt Hon Lady Smith: Artemis Fund Managers, Barclays, Blackrock AM, Brown Advisory, Goldman Sachs, Global Access, Henderson Investment, Ishares PLC, JP Morgan, Lazard Fund Managers, Pimco Global, Vanguard Funds PLC, Fundrock Management CO Gsquaretrix.<br>Sheriff Principal Duncan L Murray: None<br>Sheriff Iona McDonald: None<br>Sheriff A Grant McCulloch: None <br>Johan Findlay OBE JP: Aviva, Vodaphone, Santander, Unilever, Norwich Union, Legal &amp; General, Fidelity Funds Network, Lloyds Banking Group, Thus Group, HBOS, Trafficmaster, Standard Life.<br>Dr Joseph Morrow QC: None<br>Lord President – Rt Hon Lord Gill (note: Lord Gill retired on 31 May 2015 and was succeed by Lord Carloway). :Henderson UK Growth Fund Retail Class Acc, Newton Global Equity Fund, Aviva Investors UK Equity Fund, Scottish Widows UK Growth Sub-Fund, HSBC Balanced Fund (Retail Acc), Royal Mail Plc, TSB Group Plc, Urban and Civil Plc, Vestry Court Ltd.</strong></p><p align="justify">In an effort to bring greater transparency to Scotland’s judiciary - <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> - first debated at Holyrood’s <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/declare-your-interests-mlords-scottish.html"><strong><u>Public Petitions Committee in January 2013</u></strong></a> – calls for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world. <p align="justify">A full debate in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber was held <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014</u></strong></a> - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by MSPs from all political parties. <p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/interests-amiss-mlord-property-paid.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)62tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-3785059925092180203Thu, 06 Oct 2016 14:40:00 +00002016-10-06T22:17:51.734+01:00Freedom of Informationjudicial expensesJudiciary of ScotlandLord HamiltonQatarScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish Courts ServiceScottish GovernmentTransparencyPUBLISH & BE JUDGED: As Lord President, Lord Hamilton gave nod to transparency after media interest prompted decision to publish judges’ expenses claims<p align="justify"><em><a title="Lord Hamilton - took decision to publish judiciary's expenses claims" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/judicial%20expenses"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7aG8xd1BycXZCcTQ" width="358" align="left" height="558"></a>Former Lord President Lord Hamilton, now of Qatar court.</em> <strong>TRANSPARENCY</strong> has not always been the perceived sworn &amp; deadly enemy of Scotland’s jet setting, boozing, partying, public-funds-cheating &amp; tax-avoiding-island-hopping-bank-fiddling <a title="Judiciary of Scotland" href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/judiciary"><strong><u>Judiciary of Scotland</u></strong></a>&nbsp; - as one former Lord President proved when confronted by journalists investigating the veil of secrecy around our ermine clad public servants.</p><p align="justify">For the story of how Scotland’s judiciary finally surrendered details of their own cash splurging expenses claims – began with <a title="Scots judges emerge from &lsquo;Victorian veil&rsquo; as judiciary&rsquo;s expenses claims set to be published online from November 2010" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2010/09/scots-judges-emerge-from-victorian-veil.html"><strong><u>an investigation by Diary of Injustice during 2010</u></strong></a> – prompting a decision by the then Lord President – Lord Arthur Hamilton – to publish judges expenses claims on a quarterly basis ever since.</p><p align="justify">The task – to break the secrecy around how much public cash our judges were burning up for junkets here, there and everywhere – was admittedly difficult.</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Government – initially claimed they held no such figures - and none existed.</p><p align="justify">The same was true of the Scottish Courts Service – eager to keep the open wallet policy of throwing cash at the judiciary out of the headlines.</p><p align="justify">But, there was Freedom of Information – a tool to be used by all – media and public alike – to break the secrecy of our public institutions no matter how high up the ladder they regard themselves.</p><p align="justify">Compared to England &amp; Wales – where the judiciary were required to publish their expenses claims and had done so for many years, going that little bit further in Scotland appeared almost impossible, with the resistance encountered from public bodies responsible for&nbsp; the figures.</p><p align="justify">The more resistance, the more suspicion there was … something to hide.</p><p align="justify">On top of judicial salaries in 2010 – around £6.1 million, the judges were topping up their positions with cumulative expenses claims of £200K.</p><p align="justify">Admittedly perhaps not in the Westminster Parliament’s expenses fiddling league – but getting there – if left secretive and unchecked.</p><p align="justify">However, once told of the queries - Lord Hamilton – the top man - was having none of it - and the Scottish Courts Service were ordered to make the figures public on a rolling basis – every quarter.</p><p align="justify">And since 2010, on a more often than not regular basis, the public are able to read up on how much Scotland’s eerily secretive, not-very-diverse-or-representative-of-the-wider-community judges plunder from the public purse by clicking here: <a title="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/66/0/Judicial-expenses" href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/66/0/Judicial-expenses"><strong><u>Judiciary of Scotland - Judicial Expenses Claims</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">In one quarter alone this year – from 1 April to 31 June, our Court of Session Senators on salaries of up to £225K a year - claimed a whopping £17,331.57 extra in expenses.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway – who is otherwise occupied in fighting proposals before the Scottish Parliament to create an even greater and more effective level of transparency – <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> – claimed £1315.66 expenses in the last quarter available. </p><p align="justify">Lady Dorrian – The Lord Justice Clerk – claimed a mere £338, Lady Smith - £176.55. Lady A Carmichael- £121. Lord Kinclaven claimed a whopping £6,195.35 – most of which falls under the heading of “accommodation and subsistence”. Lord Brailsford required £14.85 from the public purse – the same judge whose name appears on the title deeds of the Laigh Hall – as a “trustee” for the Faculty of Advocates who swiped it from public ownership. Lord Matthews claimed £308.70. Lord Pentland claimed £385.86. Lady Stacey claimed £741.50. Lord Tyree claimed £490.52. Lord Stewart claimed £3,990.75. Lord Burns claimed £103.80.Lord Armstrong claimed £2,709.50. and Lady Rae claimed £439.53. Bringing a grand total of £17,331.57 for a mere three months work for a handful of judges.</p><p align="justify">It’s a tough life being a Senator of the Court of Session. </p><p align="justify">All that jet setting, sitting in court, gatherings with the legal crowd at taxpayers expense. resisting declaring their interests. </p><p align="justify">A tough life indeed – but at least Lord Hamilton allowed the media and the public the chance to peer a little deeper into how our cash flowed out on <a title="Overseas travel of Scottish judges" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Overseas%20travel%20of%20Scottish%20judges"><strong><u>judicial jet set junkets</u></strong></a> and<strong> </strong><a title="Judicial Expenses" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/judicial%20expenses"><strong><u>judicial expenses claims</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Since retiring as Lord President, Lord Hamilton now serves on the supplementary panel of the <a title="United Kingdom Supreme Court" href="https://www.supremecourt.uk"><strong><u>United Kingdom Supreme Court</u></strong></a> (UKSC).</p><p align="justify">Additionally, from April 2015 - the former Lord President now holds a position on the <a title="Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre" href="http://www.qicdrc.com.qa/"><strong><u>Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre</u></strong></a> – where big business can confront each other over – as the title suggests – disputes.</p><p align="justify">The Qatar International Court (QIC) is based in Doha, Qatar. The Court’s mission statement from their website states: “To provide a world-class international court and dispute resolution Centre that will maintain the highest ethical standards, act in accordance with internationally recognized best practices and deliver justice fairly and efficiently with a firm commitment to upholding the Rule of Law.” <p align="justify">The court is led by QIC President, The Rt. Hon. The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers – former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales who served as President of the Supreme Court of the UK from 2009 to 2012. <p align="justify">Appointed along with Lord Hamilton was Edwin Glasgow QC from England, Gopal Subramaniam from India and Justice Laurence Li, a former supplementary judge of the Qatar International Court, from Hong Kong. <p align="justify">The QIC comprises the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal established pursuant to QFC Law No 7 of 2005, as amended by QFC Law No 14 of 2009. The QIC has internationally renowned judges with expertise in complex commercial disputes and serves to uphold the rule of law, applying the highest quality international legal standards to civil and commercial disputes between individuals and business entities operating both in and outside the QFC.</p><p align="justify">Readers will be familiar with Lord Brian Gill’s five day state visit to Qatar <a title="LORD JET SET: Scotland&rsquo;s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/lord-jet-set-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html"><strong><u>LORD JET SET: Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill takes 5 day STATE VISIT to Qatar as investigation reveals judiciary's international travel junkets spree</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Gill took the junket in preference to appearing before the Scottish Parliament to give evidence on <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/publish-be-judged-as-lord-president.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-7940974410286748941Mon, 03 Oct 2016 16:43:00 +00002016-10-03T17:43:15.109+01:00Judiciary of ScotlandLord CarlowayLord PresidentMaurice Corry MSPPetition 1458Petitions Committeeregister of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish ParliamentQUESTION TIME, M’LORD: Top judge Lord Carloway to face MSPs on his opposition to judicial transparency & proposal to create a register of judges’ interests<p align="justify"><em><a title="Scotland's top judge Lord Carloway opposes judicial trapsparency register" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WWp3OUFBLU1jN2M" width="358" align="left" height="515"></a>Lord Carloway called to Scottish Parliament on judicial register.</em> <strong>SCOTLAND’s</strong> top judge – Lord President <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> has been invited to appear before the Scottish Parliament to face questions on his opposition to proposals requiring the judiciary to declare their interests.</p><p align="justify">The invitation to the top judge has been issued by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee - who are conducting a four year investigation on a call for full judicial transparency -&nbsp; contained in the widely backed petition - <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">During last Thursday’s meeting of the Public Petitions Committee - Deputy Convener Angus MacDonald MSP (SNP) led calls to keep the petition open and called for Lord Carloway to face questions on his known opposition to the judicial transparency proposals. </p><p align="justify">Deputy Convener Mr MacDonald – who also chaired the meeting - said <strong>“I would be interested to ask if he [Lord Carloway] would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Speaking on the background of the petition, the Deputy Convener said: <strong>“I have some background to the issue. There was a debate in the chamber on the matter in the previous session, and the petition received quite a lot of support from members. Also in the previous session, the former Lord President, Lord Gill, appeared before the Public Petitions Committee.” </strong></p><p align="justify">Mr MacDonald continued: <strong>“We have received a submission from the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, who is basically opposed to the suggestion, and I would be interested in asking whether he would be keen to come in and give us oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Angus MacDonald also reiterated his support for the idea of a judicial register – <a title="Angus MacDonald MSP Register of Judicial Interests Petition PE1458 Scottish Parliament 9 Oct 2014" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZs3qXldYWo"><strong><u>keenly expressed by the SNP MSP during the earlier Holyrood debate in 2014</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The Deputy Convener also called for legal academic Professor Alan Paterson to be invited to give evidence before the committee.</p><p align="justify">Mr MacDonald said: <strong>“I note Professor Alan Paterson’s comments and criticisms in relation to the perceived inadequacies of the current recusals register. It could be helpful to take oral evidence from him, too.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Earlier this year Professor Paterson – of the University of Strathclyde – <a title="JUDICIAL REGISTER: Scottish Parliament probe on judges' register of interests hears from top Law Professor - room for widening transparency to include more than pecuniary interests, current recusals register is not complete." href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/judicial-register-scottish-parliament.html"><strong><u>provided written evidence to MSPs</u></strong></a> in which the legal academic issued stinging criticisms of the current “<a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-recused-scotlands-306m-year-judges.html"><strong><u>Recusal Register</u></strong></a>” – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/scotlands-top-judge-private-meeting-to.html"><strong><u>set up by Lord Gill as a result of a private meeting with MSPs</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Writing in a letter to the Petitions Committee - Professor Paterson said: <strong>“The Public Register of Judicial Recusals is indeed to be welcomed but it only records the cases in which Scottish judges have actually recused themselves, not the cases in which they have been asked to recuse themselves and have declined to do so, far less those in which they might reasonably have been asked to recuse themselves but were not.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“In short, we cannot always tell if judges are recusing themselves or declining to recuse themselves in the right cases. One measure which might assist with that issue is to ask whether the decision as to recusal should be left to the judge who has been challenged.”</strong> <p align="justify">As the meeting continued - Brian Whittle MSP (Scottish Conservatives) added:<strong> “I think the petition is not unreasonable. I would be quite keen.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The committee had earlier heard from MSP Maurice Corry (Scottish Conservatives) - who initially said the judicial register <strong>“would be no bad thing</strong>” - then moved an unsuccessful motion to close the petition.</p><p align="justify">After the session ended, the Public Petitions Committee published their decision to call in further witnesses: <strong>“PE1458 by Peter Cherbi on register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. The Committee agreed to invite the Lord President and Professor Alan Paterson to give oral evidence at a future meeting.”</strong></p><p align="justify">However, Carloway – who earns £225K a year as Lord President - along with significant pension perks and jet set junkets - is already on record as being against the judicial transparency proposals</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway – who succeeded <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> as Lord President - claimed in written evidence earlier this year to the Petitions Committee the justice system could be brought to a halt if judges were forced to declare their wealth and interests. <p align="justify">Lord Carloway (<em>real name:</em> Colin Sutherland) told MSPs: “<strong>The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary's otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”</strong> <p align="justify">If the judicial transparency proposal becomes reality, all members of Scotland’s judiciary - instead of just the elite few who sit on the board of the Scottish Courts - will be required to declare their vast and varied interests including their backgrounds, personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land interests, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.</p><p align="justify">More on the full debate in Holyrood’s main chamber is reported with video footage and the official record, here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>Debating the Judges</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">A full report on Lord Carloway’s opposition to judicial transparency can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal</u></strong></a> <p align="justify">Video footage of the meeting &amp; transcript follows: <p align="center"><a title="Petition PE1458 Public Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament 29 Sept 2016" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YRJ00uBh1k"><strong><u>Petition PE1458 Public Petitions Committee Scottish Parliament 29 Sept 2016</u></strong></a> <p align="center"><strong><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5YRJ00uBh1k" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe></strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Deputy Convener:</strong> PE1458, is by Peter Cherbi and calls for the establishment of a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members will have seen the note by the clerk and submissions from the petitioner and Professor Paterson. Members will also be aware of further information that was provided by Mr Cherbi in respect of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Complaints Reviewer.</p><p align="justify">The action that is called for in Mr Cherbi’s petition received support from a number of MSPs in the previous session of Parliament, but neither the Scottish Government nor the current or former Lord President supports the introduction of such a register.</p><p align="justify">Do members have any views on what we should do with the petition?</p><p align="justify"><strong>Maurice Corry:</strong> I personally do not think that the proposed register would be the worst thing but, since the views of those who decide on the matter are set, the petition should be closed.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Rona Mackay:</strong> I have sympathy with Mr Cherbi and agree that there should be a register. However, I am not sure how much further we can take the petition or what road we could go down to progress it.</p><p align="justify"><strong>The Deputy Convener:</strong> I have some background to the issue. There was a debate in the chamber on the matter in the previous session, and the petition received quite a lot of support from members. Also in the previous session, the former Lord President, Lord Gill, appeared before the Public Petitions Committee. We have received a submission from the current Lord President, Lord Carloway, who is basically opposed to the suggestion, and I would be interested in asking whether he would be keen to come in and give us oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.</p><p align="justify">I note Professor Alan Paterson’s comments and criticisms in relation to the perceived inadequacies of the current recusals register. It could be helpful to take oral evidence from him, too.</p><p align="justify">I also note Mr Cherbi’s suggestion that we should invite the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Gillian Thompson, to give her thoughts on the proposal to create a register of judicial interests. However, we took evidence from her on the petition in the previous session and I am unsure whether she has changed her view, which was that there should be a register.</p><p align="justify">Would members be interested in hearing from Lord Carloway and Professor Paterson?</p><p align="justify"><strong>Maurice Corry:</strong> That seems pretty fair.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Brian Whittle:</strong>The petition is not unreasonable, and I would be keen to explore the issue further.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Rona Mackay:</strong> I agree. I would be happy to hear more evidence, as it is a big subject.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Maurice Corry:</strong> I am happy with that.</p><p align="justify"><strong>The Deputy Convener:</strong> We can ask the Lord President whether he is prepared to give oral evidence to the committee—there was a difficulty with the previous Lord President agreeing to do that. If he does not agree to do that, we will have to refer to his written submission.</p><p align="justify">Do we agree to that suggested course of action?</p><p align="justify">Members indicated agreement.</p><p align="justify">Today, the Judicial Office for Scotland refused to give any comment on their behalf or from Lord Carloway. <p align="justify">The Sunday Herald newspaper reported on latest developments in the long running petition here: <a title="MSPs to grill new Lord President on judicial register of interest" href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14777121.MSPs_to_grill_new_Lord_President_on_judicial_register_of_interest/"><strong><u>MSPs to grill new Lord President on judicial register of interest</u></strong></a> <p align="justify">And, the Sunday Mail newspaper reported on the invitation to Lord Carloway here: <p align="justify"><strong><a title="Judge Lord Carloway faces demands from MSPs over judges' register" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judge-lord-carloway-faces-demands-8958874"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QUV2X09vUnZtTGc" width="165" align="left" height="341"></a>&nbsp;</strong><a title="Judge Lord Carloway faces demands from MSPs over judges' register" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/judge-lord-carloway-faces-demands-8958874"><strong><u>Judge Lord Carloway faces demands from MSPs over judges' register</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">2 Oct 2016 By Mark Aitken</p><p align="justify"><strong>THE Lord President has been asked to appear before Holyrood’s petitions committee, who are considering a submission for a judicial register of interests.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>JUDGE Lord Carloway is facing demands from MSPs to explain why his colleagues’ business and financial secrets shouldn’t be made public.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Lord President has been asked to appear before Holyrood’s petitions committee, who are considering a submission by campaigner Peter Cherbi for a judicial register of interests.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Details could include gifts, property, shares and criminal convictions.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Public petitions committee deputy convener Angus MacDonald said: “We’ve had a submission from the Lord President, who is basically opposed to the suggestion.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“However, I would be interested to ask if he would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>A Judicial Office spokesman said: “We’re not in a position to comment as the Lord President has not received any such invitation.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/10/question-time-mlord-top-judge-lord.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)54tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-3184150470653459987Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:05:00 +00002016-09-27T17:21:04.346+01:00Gillian ThompsonJudicial Complaints ReviewerLord CarlowayMoi AliPetition 1458Petitions Committeeregister of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish GovernmentScottish ParliamentJUDICIAL REPORTS AXED: Reports by trailblazing Judicial Investigator exposing lack of accountability & power of Scottish judges - removed in bid to silence debate on judicial transparency<p align="justify"><em><a title="Evidence from Scotland&rsquo;s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to Public Petitions Committee on Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland&rsquo;s Judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/09/evidence-from-scotlands-judicial.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dU9PeVY2VWhFOGs" width="358" align="left" height="498"></a>Key reports on judges by crusading Judicial investigator removed from public view.</em> <strong>GROUND BREAKING</strong> reports written by a trailblazing Judicial investigator on the inner workings of the <a title="Judiciary of Scotland" href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/"><strong><u>Judiciary of Scotland</u></strong></a> have been removed from public view&nbsp; by the Scottish Government - in an apparent bid to wipe evidence of the lack of accountability of Scotland’s elite, secretive and all-powerful judiciary.</p><p align="justify">The three hard hitting reports – authored by Moi Ali - Scotland’s first ever <a href="http://judicialcomplaintsreviewer.org.uk/"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer</u></strong></a> (JCR) are no longer available on the JCR’s website after they were removed by the Scottish Government - who control the website.</p><p align="justify">The key reports cover the years 2011-2014 - when Lord Arthur Hamilton, and subsequently <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> - served as Lord President &amp; Lord Justice General. Gill (75) - who was Lord Justice Clerk in 2011, succeeded Lord Hamilton to the top judicial post in June 2012.</p><p align="justify">The ground-breaking insight into Scotland’s judiciary also formed part of evidence submitted to a Scottish Parliament investigation into proposals to create a Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary: <strong></strong><a href="http://www.parliament.scot/gettinginvolved/petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a>. </p><p align="justify">The disappearance of the three highly acclaimed and critical reports on heavy handed secretive Scottish judges was revealed in <a title="Judicial watchdog has failed to publish an annual report in over two years" href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14763211.Judicial_watchdog_has_failed_to_publish_an_annual_report_in_over_two_years/"><strong><u>an investigation this week by the Sunday Herald newspaper</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Diary of Injustice has republished the JCR annual reports making them available to the public once more here: <a title="Judicial Complaints Reviewer Scotland Annual Report 2011-2012" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VUZ5Wm9JMk9zMmc/"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer Scotland Annual Report 2011-2012</u></strong></a>, <a title="Judicial Complaints Reviewer Scotland Annual Report 2012-2013" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QzFsX2Z1MGozYXM/"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer Scotland Annual Report 2012-2013</u></strong></a><strong> and </strong><a title="Judicial Complaints Reviewer Scotland Annual Report 2013-2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7NjMyVmJ0NkpzUDQ/"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer Scotland Annual Report 2013-2014</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">The Sunday Herald investigation also revealed Gillian Thompson OBE – who took over the role&nbsp; of Judicial Complaints Reviewer from Moi Ali in late 2014 - has not produced an annual report in the two years since she was appointed to the post.</p><p align="justify">Gillian Thompson is known to support calls to create a register of interests for judges. </p><p align="justify">During the summer of 2015, Ms Thompson appeared before the Public Petitions Committee and fully backed proposals to require judges to declare their interests.</p><p align="justify">In response to questions from members of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee, JCR Gillian Thompson OBE told MSPs: <strong>“I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.”</strong></p><p align="justify">A full report and video footage of Gillian Thompson’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament and her support for a register of judicial interests can be found here: <a title="REGISTER, M&rsquo;LORD: Former top judge Brian Gill called to Scottish Parliament as Judicial watchdog tells MSPs - Judges should declare their interests in public register" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/08/register-mlord-former-top-judge-brian.html"><strong><u>Judicial watchdog tells MSPs - Judges should declare their interests in public register</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">However, little has been heard from the JCR since Ms Thompson's 2015 Holyrood appearance and the Sunday Herald article states the current JCR “could not be reached”.</p><p align="justify">And the lack of an annual JCR report since 2015 comes despite a Ministerial Directive to the JCR to produce an annual report which former JCR Moi Ali described as “an important form of public accountability”.</p><p align="justify">The Ministerial directive - listed in page four of the 2012-2013 annual report, states : <strong>“Appointed Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewer in 2011, I published my first annual report in January 2013 for the period to August 31st 2012. The JCR has no independent power to publish reports and may do so only if directed by Scottish Ministers. This year I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for an open-ended direction to publish an annual report, which he issued. Now, successive JCRs will have a clear requirement to report annually. Stakeholders have a right to know about the work of public appointees: the publishing of an annual report is an important form of&nbsp; public accountability.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Serving as Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Moi Ali appeared before the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament in a hard hitting evidence session during September of 2013.</p><p align="justify">Ms Ali gave a full account of her role as Judicial investigator to MSPs, and went on to describe oversight of Scottish judges as “Window Dressing”.</p><p align="justify">At the hearing, Ms Ali also backed proposals before the Scottish Parliament calling for the creation of a register of judicial interests.– reported here: <a title="Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/09/as-scotlands-top-judge-battles-on.html"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer tells MSPs judges should register their interests like others in public life</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The full transcript of evidence from Moi Ali during her tem as Judicial Complaints Reviewer can be found here: <a title="Evidence from Scotland&rsquo;s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to Public Petitions Committee on Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland&rsquo;s Judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/09/evidence-from-scotlands-judicial.html"><strong><u>Evidence from Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to Public Petitions Committee on Petition 1458 Register of Interests for Scotland’s Judiciary</u></strong></a>, video footage of the hearing can be viewed here:</p><p align="center"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXNetOm2ow"><strong><u>JCR Moi Ali gives evidence to Scottish Parliament on a proposed Register of Judicial Interests</u></strong></a></p><p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1fXNetOm2ow" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p align="justify"><u><a title="Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali to Public Petitions Committee 23 April 2014" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7OXlSMFFqWFBweWs/"><strong><u>Writing in a further letter to the Public Petitions Committee</u></strong></a></u> Judicial Complaints Reviewer Moi Ali told MSPs of the <strong>“incredibly powerful”</strong> nature of the judiciary and why a register of judicial interests would help judicial transparency and public confidence in the justice system. </p><p align="justify">Moi Ali stated: “<strong>I write not from the viewpoint of the judiciary, who have a vested interest in this issue. I write from the perspective of the Scottish public. I write not on behalf of those who hand down justice, but those who are on the receiving end. It is important that their voice is heard. They have a right to know that justice is being done, an essential component of which is that it is seen to be done. A register of interests is a tangible way of showing that justice is being done.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“Given the position of power held by the judiciary, it is essential not only that they have absolute integrity but crucially, that they are seen to have absolute integrity. Again, a register of interests is a way of demonstrating that a judicial office holder is impartial and has no vested interest in a case –financially, through family connections, club/society membership or in any other way. Conversely, the refusal to institute a register of interests creates suspicion that in turn undermines judicial credibility. So once more, a register of interests is good for the judiciary and good for the public.”</strong> <p align="justify">If the judicial transparency proposal becomes reality, all members of Scotland’s judiciary - instead of just the elite few who sit on the board of the Scottish Courts - will be required to declare their vast and varied interests including their backgrounds, personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land interests, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.</p><p align="justify">The proposal to require all members of the judiciary to declare their interests gained cross party support from msps during a debate on the petition - held at the Scottish Parliament on 7 October 2014, and reported along with video footage and the official record, here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>Debating the Judges</u></strong></a>. MSPs overwhelmingly supported a motion urging the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. </p><p align="justify"><strong>The Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee is due to hear Petition PE1458 on Thursday 29 September 2016.</strong></p><p align="justify">A submission from the petitioner to MSPs asks the Committee to invite Professor Alan Paterson to give evidence in a public session.</p><p align="justify">Writing in evidence to MSPs earlier this year, Professor Patterson heavily criticised the “<a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-recused-scotlands-306m-year-judges.html"><strong><u>Recusal Register</u></strong></a>” – which was <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/scotlands-top-judge-private-meeting-to.html"><strong><u>set up by Lord Gill as a result of a private meeting with MSPs</u></strong></a> in a bid to head off the intense probe by MSPs into judicial interests and transparency. </p><p align="justify">A full report on Professor Patterson’s written evidence to MSPs can be found here:<strong> </strong><a title="Law Professor - room for widening transparency to include more than pecuniary interests, current recusals register is not complete." href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/judicial-register-scottish-parliament.html"><strong><u>Law Professor - room for widening transparency to include more than pecuniary interests, current recusals register is not complete</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">MSPs have also received a request to take forward earlier recommendations to invite the new Lord President – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> – to appear before the Public Petitions Committee and face questions on his opposition to judicial transparency and declarations of judicial interests.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway is known to oppose opening up a register of judicial interests. In an earlier letter to MSPs, the latest in a long line of Lord Presidents blasted calls for judicial transparency.</p><p align="justify">The top judge – who succeeded Brian Gill as Lord President - claimed in a letter to the Petitions Committee that justice could be brought to a halt if judges were forced to declare their wealth and interests.</p><p align="justify">Lord Carloway (<em>real name:</em> Colin Sutherland) told MSPs: “<strong>The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary's otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”</strong></p><p align="justify">A full report on Lord Carloway’s opposition to judicial transparency can be found here: <a title="LORD NO-WAY: Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal - tells Holyrood &lsquo;justice could suffer&rsquo; if judges are forced to reveal secret wealth, tax, land ownership &amp; financial links to big business" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>Top judge Lord Carloway hits out at judicial interests register proposal</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">A suggestion has also been passed to MSPs to contact current JCR Gillian Thompson to establish if there are any further views she wishes to put forward in terms of support for the petition already given by Ms Thompson during an evidence session held at the Scottish Parliament during June 2015.</p><p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/judicial-reports-axed-reports-by.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-7657788597912476918Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:19:00 +00002016-09-24T13:19:26.623+01:00Check your solicitors recordLaw Society of ScotlandScottish GovernmentScottish Legal Complaints Commissionself regulationSolicitors Regulation Authoritysolicitors regulatory historyINSPECT YOUR ROGUE: Check your solicitors’ record in England, but not in Scotland - UK Solicitors Regulation Authority ‘years ahead’ of pro-lawyer Scots legal watchdogs<p align="justify"><em><a title="Check your solicitor's record - England &amp; Wales" href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check.page"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Q01HUTFGOXVwUFE" width="400" align="left" height="249"></a>Check the regulatory history of your lawyer, not for Scotland</em>. <strong>FAR REMOVED</strong> from the haven of corrupt and dodgy law firms which shape the landscape of Scotland’s greedy, overbearing legal services market, clients of lawyers in England &amp; Wales have the opportunity to check any solicitor’s record – before shelling out tens of thousands of pounds to a hard working lawyer – or a lazy crook.</p><p align="justify">The <a title="Check your solicitor&rsquo;s record" href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check.page"><strong><u>Check your solicitor’s record</u></strong></a> service – operated by the <a href="https://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>Solicitors Regulation Authority</u></strong></a> (SRA) allows anyone to find out if a solicitor or law firm operating in England &amp; Wales has regulatory decisions made against them in relation to complaints of ripping off clients or providing poor legal services to UK consumers.</p><p align="justify">However, no such service is on offer in Scotland, due to lobbying from the powerful, shady clique of the <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a> and other Scots legal vested interests – who are determined to maintain anonymity of corrupt and incompetent legal practitioners north of the border.</p><p align="justify">And, instead of providing consumers with a verifiable means of checking up on Scottish solicitors and law firms, the <a href="https://www.scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC)</u></strong></a> publish only a selection of heavily edited and censored descriptions of cases which pass through the anti-consumer revolving doors of the Law Society-controlled pro-lawyer regulator.</p><p align="justify">Diary of Injustice recently reported on how the Scottish legal complaints regulator avoids identifying corrupt and dodgy lawyers within determination decisions – which are only published after being approved by members of the Law Society of Scotland : <a title="FROM ROGUES TO RICHES: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission refuse to identify corrupt solicitors in case findings - as derisory payments to executry fraud &amp; legal malpractice victims revealed" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-question-of-trust-should-solicitors.html"><strong><u>FROM ROGUES TO RICHES: SLCC refuse to identify corrupt solicitors in case findings</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Admittedly, the service on offer from the SRA in England &amp; Wales does have some drawbacks - for example, not all regulatory decisions are published, and there are time limits to their publication scheme.</p><p align="justify">However, the facility is a huge advantage over what prospective and existing clients of Scottish solicitors face in efforts to find an honest lawyer north of the border – which some have likened to entering into a game of Russian Roulette with a six barrelled shotgun.</p><p align="justify">Recent regulation decisions made by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in relation to law firms and solicitors operating in England and Wales can be found here <a title="Recent Decisions - Solicitors Regulation Authority" href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/recent-decisions/recent-decisions.page"><strong><u>Recent Decisions - Solicitors Regulation Authority</u></strong></a> <p align="justify">A helpful guide on how to use the SRA’s solicitor regulation search service lists the following tips: <p align="justify"><strong>You can use our </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check.page"><strong><u>solicitor record check</u></strong></a><strong> search function to have a look at regulatory decisions that we have made against regulated individuals and </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>firms</u></strong></a><strong>. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>You can search decisions by the name of the </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>solicitor</u></strong></a><strong>, firm, or other regulated individual, SRA ID number (also known as their </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>roll</u></strong></a><strong> number) date the decision was made, or type of decision. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>You can also view a list of </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/recent-decisions/recent-decisions.page"><strong><u>recently-published decisions</u></strong></a><strong>. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>To search for decisions about an individual or firm, enter their name and/or ID number in the search fields. To narrow your search, choose an </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>outcome</u></strong></a><strong> type and/or specify a date range. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>To see all closures (also known as "</strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong><u>interventions</u></strong></a><strong>") during May 2009, for example, leave name and ID fields blank, choose outcome type "closure" and specify the date range 1 May 2009 to 30 May 2009. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Only the most recent published decision against any firm will be displayed. To view a list of all published decisions against an individual made within the past three years (decisions are removed after three years), you will have to go into the record. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>To check whether a law firm is regulated by us, use our </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/using-solicitor/law-firm-search.page"><strong><u>Law firm search</u></strong></a><strong>. To check whether an individual is regulated by us, use the Law Society's </strong><a href="http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/"><strong><u>Find a solicitor</u></strong></a><strong> search.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>We aim to ensure decisions we publish are accurate and up to date. However, this website does not offer a complete picture of an individual's or firm's regulatory record. For example, it is possible that, since publication, a firm has ceased to practice or a </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong>solicitor</strong></a><strong> is no longer on the </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/"><strong>roll of solicitors</strong></a><strong>. Most published decisions are removed from our website three years from the date they were published. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>We have published a large number of </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/prosecutions.page"><strong><u>Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) findings</u></strong></a><strong>, dating from early 2005 to 1 July 2011.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>We do not publish findings made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; these are published by the </strong><a href="http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/search/JudgementSearch.aspx"><strong><u>Tribunal</u></strong></a><strong> itself.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Please note that the Tribunal publishes findings resulting in a strike off, indefinite suspension or revocation of authorisation of a firm indefinitely. Decisions to suspend for a fixed period remain on its website for the duration of the suspension or three years (whichever is the greater). All other decisions remain on its website for three years. If you are unable to find a decision on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal website please </strong><a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/contact-us"><strong><u>contact Solicitors Regulation Authority</u></strong></a><strong>.</strong> <p align="justify">The Solicitors Regulation Authority began publishing some decisions in January 2008 – the same year the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was created by the Scottish Government. <p align="justify">In comparison, since the SLCC came into being in 2008, the Scots legal services regulator has not identified one solicitor in any complaint investigated by the Law Society controlled quango – leading to a significant imbalance in the rights of Scots consumers to find out just how crooked their lawyer really is. <p align="justify">And, more often than not, the same Scottish law firms and same solicitors are subject of similar complaints in relation to professional misconduct, negligence, dishonesty, unashamed theft of client funds and some of the worst excesses which in any other arena would rate as criminal behaviour. <p align="justify">Yet, no one in Scotland is able to find out the regulatory history of their solicitor. No one. Unless by chance, clients who find themselves in the position of having to make a complaint against their solicitor decide to publicise their case and name the lawyers concerned. <p align="justify">A recent media investigation into the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission recently revealed most of the SLCC’s key staff and investigators are in-fact families, friends &amp; business associates of solicitors, reported here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/10/conflicting-interests-solicitors.html"><strong><u>'Independent' Scots legal watchdog consists of solicitors’ husbands, wives, sons, daughters, cousins, friends, &amp; employers</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Previous media investigations, reports and coverage of issues relating to the SLCC can be found here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Legal%20Complaints%20Commission"><strong><u>Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - A history of pro-lawyer regulation</u></strong></a>. http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/inspect-your-rogue-check-your.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-4711184217799259043Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:32:00 +00002016-09-22T16:32:11.396+01:00Alison Di RolloCrimeCrown OfficeFrank MulhollandFreedom of InformationJames Wolffe QCLord AdvocatePolice ScotlandScottish Information CommissionerCROWN CORRUPTED: More corrupt Prosecutors revealed - New Lord Advocate clamps down on transparency amid call to release more details of criminal records of Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service staff<p align="justify"><em><a title="CROWN CROOKED: Crown Office crime files reveal Scotland&rsquo;s Prosecutors &amp; staff charged with Drugs crimes, Police assault, threats &amp; perverting the course of justice" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/03/crown-crooked-crown-office-crime-files.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7c2Yybkd0MFg4dUU" width="328" align="left" height="482"></a>Media investigation exposes criminal records of Scots Prosecutors.</em> <strong>AMID THE</strong> charm offensive around the <a title="WOLFFE LAW: Crown Office &lsquo;line of succession&rsquo; falters - First Minister names James Wolffe QC as Lord Advocate &amp; Alison Di Rollo as Solicitor General" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-law-crown-office-line-of.html"><strong><u>appointment</u></strong></a> of <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20Wolffe%20QC"><strong><u>James Wolffe QC</u></strong></a> to the position of <a title="Lord Advocate" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Advocate"><strong><u>Lord Advocate</u></strong></a> – the centuries old position in charge of what is now the £112m a year <a href="http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk"><strong><u>Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service</u></strong></a> (COPFS) - it has emerged transparency has been given the axe after the Crown Office refused to release further details of serous criminal offences committed by COPFS staff and prosecutors.</p><p align="justify">Among the criminal charges against Scots Prosecutors – <a title="CROWN CROOKED: Crown Office crime files reveal Scotland&rsquo;s Prosecutors &amp; staff charged with Drugs crimes, Police assault, threats &amp; perverting the course of justice" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/03/crown-crooked-crown-office-crime-files.html"><strong><u>revealed earlier&nbsp; this year in a media investigation</u></strong></a>- are charges relating to misuse of drugs – thought to relate to the use of, or potential dealing of Class A substances such as cocaine, assaults against Police Officers, threats, perverting the course of justice, and breaches of the Official Secrets Act.</p><p align="justify">Journalists again approached the Crown Office again for information relating to specific charges against COPFS staff including those relating to Misuse of drugs offences, what kind or type of drugs related to the charges, and information contained in what specific charges were made against COPFS staff in relation to “offences against the police”.</p><p align="justify">However, the Crown Office refused to release any further details of the criminal offences committed by their own team -&nbsp; on the basis disclosure of the information may lead to the identification of those found guilty of serious criminal offences.</p><p align="justify">The shocking move by the Crown Office under the charge of newly fast-tracked QC &amp; Solicitor General Allison Di Rollo, and Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC - comes as<strong> </strong><a title="figures emerge of even more criminal convictions of Crown Office Prosecutors and staff" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WmJPMDBRMThBSDg/"><strong><u>figures emerge of even more criminal convictions of Crown Office Prosecutors and staff</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">In addition to 15 cases of criminal charges raised against Prosecutors &amp; COPFS staff already revealed in an investigation by the Scottish Sun newspaper in March 2016, the Crown Office have now been forced to admit a <a title="further 15 cases of criminal charges against their own team" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7WmJPMDBRMThBSDg/"><strong><u>further 15 cases of criminal charges against their own team</u></strong></a> – between 2010 and 2013.</p><p align="justify">And, only 4 out of the 15 cases of newly revealed criminal charges against Crown Office employees &amp; Prosecutors were taken to court.</p><p align="justify">In the new data released by the Crown Office in response to a Freedom of Information request, COPFS disclosed:</p><p align="justify"><strong>Between January 2010 and November 2013, we retain records showing 15 cases reported to COPFS containing allegations of criminal offences by COPFS staff. Court proceedings were taken in four of those cases, eight cases were dealt with by non- court disposal and no proceedings were taken in three cases.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The charges brought against staff include assault; road traffic offences; breach of the peace and computer misuse.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Guilty verdicts were recorded in the four cases where court proceedings were raised.</strong> <p align="justify">The new information comes after COPFS previously admitted it retained records from November 2013 to November 2015 showing 15 cases reported to COPFS containing allegations of criminal offences by COPFS staff. </p><p align="justify"><strong>Court proceedings were taken in 11 cases, three cases were disposed of by non-court disposal and no proceedings were taken in one case. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The charges brought against staff include assault and vandalism; road traffic offences; threatening and abusive conduct; breach of the peace; Misuse of drugs/offences against the police; data protection offences/attempt to pervert the course of justice. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>In the 11 cases where court proceedings were raised, these were concluded as follows: Guilty plea accepted (4); accused found guilty after trial (1); case marked for no further action (1); court proceedings active (4).</strong> </p><p align="justify">And – the <a title="Scottish Information Commissioner" href="http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/"><strong><u>Scottish Information Commissioner</u></strong></a> (SIC) – who was asked to review the Crown Office refusal to disclose further details – said it could not become involved in the investigation, citing rules which allow the Lord Advocate to deem secret any information or data he so choses.</p><p align="justify">The SIC said it could not act because<strong> “Section 48 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 states that no application may be made to the Commissioner following on from such a request for review where information held by the Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. This includes any information held by the Crown Office in connection with the investigation and/or prosecution of crime, or the investigation of sudden deaths and/or fatal accidents.</strong></p><p align="justify">It has now been suggested internal COPFS processes governing which staff are assigned to cases have broke down on many occasions, resulting in Crown Office employees with criminal records working on key prosecution cases – some of which suspiciously collapsed.</p><p align="justify">A legal insider has backed up the notion certain high profile criminal cases and prosecutions resulting in significantly less sentences, and plea deals - instead of big time hits against well known crime figures – may have been affected by defence teams ‘familiarity’ with certain Crown Agents and staff</p><p align="justify">Speaking to Diary of Injustice earlier this week, a leading Criminal Defence solicitor suggested it may now be worth asking Procurators Fiscal to declare – in court- any criminal charges or convictions before they proceed to represent the Crown in a prosecution.</p><p align="justify">The solicitor said: <strong>“If my client is being prosecuted for a particular type of criminal offence, I believe it is in the interests of justice for the court to be made aware the Procurator Fiscal may have a criminal conviction for the same, or a potentially more serious offence.”</strong></p><p align="justify">In certain cases, prosecutions may well have been compromised after Crown Office personnel leaked information to criminals – as occurred in one case (among others) where a COPFS employee was found guilty of breaking the Official Secrets Act and passing details to known crooks.</p><p align="justify">The revelations of Crown Office informants handing over key files and tips on COPFS investigations to crooks are a considerable blow to law enforcement organisations such as Police Scotland and international law enforcement organisations from other countries – who share evidence with the Crown Office in the hopes of putting away criminals, drug dealers and gangsters. </p><p align="justify"><strong>PROSECUTORS CRIMINAL RECORDS REVEALED:</strong> <p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7d29fQWZGS1REZEE/"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-w6TGjGnVadE/VuLYpQi3laI/AAAAAAAACP0/zcUGFPAqqjU7AKA9gTlKuitUm2LEw9dvQCCo/s400-Ic42/Criminal%2Brecords%2Bof%2BCOPFS%2BCrown%2BOffice%2Bcover%2Bpage.jpg" width="240" align="left" height="341"></a>Crooks among Them – <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7d29fQWZGS1REZEE/"><strong><u>Prosecutors own crime gang revealed</u></strong></a>. The only case where a COPFS employee was found guilty after trial relates to that of Iain Sawers, 27, from Edinburgh, who was found guilty of passing information to the criminal fraternity - during a seven-day trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in September 2014.</p><p align="justify">A jury found Sawers guilty on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, the Official Secrets Act and nine under the Data Protection Act. <p align="justify">Sawers joined the Productions Office of the Procurator Fiscal Service in Chambers Street in the city in 2008. <p align="justify">His induction covered security of information and the warning that any breach could lead to disciplinary proceedings. He was also told, under the Official Secrets Act, the unauthorised disclosure of documents was an offence. <p align="justify">The offences by Sawers came to light when police began an investigation into the case of 27-year old Calum Stewart on charges of breach of bail and attempting to pervert the course of justice by threatening his ex-partner, Kelli Anne Smillie, if she gave evidence in a trial in July, 2013. <p align="justify">Stewart paid for her and her mother to leave the country and go on holiday to Benidorm on the week of the trial. <p align="justify">The police investigations led them to a number of phone calls and text messages between Stewart and Sawers between 24 and 29 January 2014. <p align="justify">These led to Stewart phoning Kelli Anne threatening her and her mother. They were to be witnesses in the outstanding trial which has since been deserted by the Crown. <p align="justify">The police also recovered Sawers' iPhone. Although many messages had been deleted, forensic experts were able to recover them and the telephone numbers of the senders and receiver. They showed that between April 2008 and January 2014, Sawers had passed on information to other people on nine occasions. <p align="justify">A check on the productions office computer showed shortly after receiving a call, Sawers' secret personal user number was used to access the information. <p align="justify">The jury also found Stewart guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and breach of bail. Neither men gave evidence during the trial – much to the relief of the Lord Advocate. <p align="justify">The Crown Office also admitted 40 staff&nbsp; had been subject to disciplinary action, been suspended, dismissed or have been moved to other duties as a result of disciplinary action between January 2013 to late last year and&nbsp; that 14 of those staff members were suspended in the period requested. The reasons for suspension included allegations related to potential criminal activity and/or charged by Police; and breach of trust. <p align="justify">Of the 40 members of staff who were suspended, 10 were dismissed from the Crown Office. <p align="justify">However officials refused to identify the reasons for their dismissal, insisting they wished to protect the identities of their colleagues and nature of the sackings. <p align="justify">A legal insider has since indicated former Crown Office staff including some of those who were sacked for disciplinary offences or had left COPFS in relation to allegations of criminal conduct or criminal charges - are back working with private law firms and public bodies with links to the Scottish Government. <p align="justify">The Scottish Sun newspaper reported further, here: <p align="justify"><strong><a href="http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/6982093/Crooks-of-the-Crown-15-legal-staff-on-charges.html"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-PqGifShiXwg/VuLZxHOrnTI/AAAAAAAACQA/-JMdsK5s1v043IsjlbarGLUmU1H4N2w5QCCo/s640-Ic42/Crooks%2Bof%2Bthe%2BCrown.jpg" width="260" align="left" height="455"></a><a href="http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/6982093/Crooks-of-the-Crown-15-legal-staff-on-charges.html"><strong><u>Crooks of the Crown: 15 legal staff on charges</u></strong></a></strong></p><p align="justify">EXCLUSIVE by RUSSELL FINDLAY 7 Mar 2016 <p align="justify"><strong>COPS charged 15 Crown Office workers with crimes including drugs, police assault and perverting the course of justice.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Violence, vandalism, threats and data breaches were also among the alleged offences.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>And 11 of those cases reported over the last two years went to court.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>A source said: “The nature of the criminal charges are very serious.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“The Crown Office should be beyond reproach as it’s responsible for highly sensitive information about the most serious crimes and sudden deaths.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Four of the 11 employees taken to court pleaded guilty, one case was dropped, four are ongoing and the outcome of one is unknown.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>It's thought Edinburgh Procurator Fiscal’s office worker Iain Sawers, 26, is the only one found guilty. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>He was jailed for 18 months in 2014 for attempting to pervert the course of justice by leaking details of cases.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The information about staff charges from the two years to November 2015 was unearthed using freedom of information laws.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Similar data on police officers accused of crimes is published by the Scottish Police Authority.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Last night, Scottish Tory justice spokesman Margaret Mitchell said: “The Crown Office should be no different from Police Scotland in that they should routinely publish this information.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The Crown Office is Scotland’s prosecution agency headed by the country’s most senior law officer Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>A spokesman said: “We employ more than 1,600 staff, the overwhelming majority of whom uphold our high standards of professionalism. Any breach of rules is dealt with swiftly and appropriately.”</strong> <p align="justify">For previous articles on the Crown Office, read more here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Crown%20Office"><strong><u>Scotland's Crown Office - in Crown detail</u></strong></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/crown-corrupted-more-corrupt.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-1230712146614523890Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:19:00 +00002016-09-17T12:09:42.281+01:00CorroborationCrown OfficeGordon Jackson QCJames Wolffe QCJustice CommitteeLord AdvocateScottish GovernmentScottish ParliamentINQUIRY OF THE CROWN: Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee launch inquiry into crime fighting ability of ‘institutionally corrupt’ Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service<p align="justify"><em><a title="Scotland's Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service - in Crown detail" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Crown%20Office"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7SE45X3R3MFU3cDA" width="328" align="left" height="476"></a>Crown Crooked – MSPs to quiz £112m-a-year Scots prosecutors. </em><strong>OFTEN DESCRIBED</strong> as the most corrupt public body in all Scotland - the <a href="http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk"><strong><u>Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service</u></strong></a> (COPFS) – is to face a major investigation of it's purpose and role in prosecuting crime - by the Scottish Parliament's <a title="The key role of the Committee is to scrutinise the Scottish Government&rsquo;s policies and expenditure in relation to justice" href="http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/justice-committee.aspx"><strong><u>Justice Committee</u></strong></a> who want to hear from you <strong>by Wednesday 19 October 2016</strong></p><p align="justify">Accused of being a haven of deceit, institutionally racist, sectarian, bigoted, prejudiced, corrupt, woefully incompetent and staffed with prosecutors who will - with ease - lie to victims of crime, misrepresent the facts in court, twist evidence of victims, witnesses and accused alike - this collection of swaggering lawyers and Crown Counsel who are paid a staggering <strong>£112.5 million of public cash this budget year</strong> to go after criminals - will now face questions on their own gangster-like existence in the annals of Scots Law.</p><p align="justify">The inquiry – which will take evidence in public during sessions of the Justice Committee over the coming months at Holyrood - will focus on the core role and examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Crown Office, how well it works with its stakeholders, and the support it provides to witnesses and victims of crime. </p><p align="justify">The Committee will also examine its responsiveness to new challenges and opportunities, such as the evolving nature of crime and advances in technology. As part of the inquiry it will examine the role and function of the independent Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">Beware however – this is an enquiry which appears to focus more on questions of whether the Crown Office has enough resources – or the budget – to be effective at ‘fighting crime’.</p><p align="justify">Hands up those of you (not vested legal interests please) who believe £112.5 million of public cash a year - as part of an ever increasing budget - makes the Crown Office under budget or under resourced.</p><p align="justify">MSPs have also clarified the Justice Committee inquiry will not consider two other roles of the Crown Office – relating to establishing the cause of sudden, unexplained or suspicious deaths or investigating allegations of criminal conduct against police officers, except in relation to the general issue of whether the COPFS has the resources it needs to carry out its purpose.</p><p align="justify">This is a Crown Office gone bad – a prosecution service so rotten - the Scottish Government was forced to remove the law on double jeopardy to allow incompetent, often strange prosecutors – some with their own secret criminal histories - to bring persons before the court time and time again until convictions are eventually secured in front of increasingly worn out judges and juries.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office which <a title="SECTARIAN SCOTLAND COVER-UP : Crown Office admits it destroyed sectarian offences data &lsquo;showing majority of crimes were against Catholics&rsquo;" href="http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/sectarian-scotland-cover-up-crown.html"><strong><u>shredded statistics on sectarian crime principally against Catholics and other religious minorities in Scotland</u></strong></a> shredded - to avoid being asked questions by MSPs considering the hated <a title="Offensive Behaviour at Football Matches &amp; Threatening Communications Act" href="http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Offensive%20Behaviour%20at%20Football%20and%20Threatening%20Communications%20%28Scotland%29%20Bill"><strong><u>Offensive Behaviour at Football Matches &amp; Threatening Communications Act</u></strong></a> and the impact of Scotland’s criminal justice system’s oh-so-obvious endemic religious bigotry. </p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office run by Prosecutors who present the deceased on witness lists at criminal trials.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office staffed by Prosecutors &amp; employees who themselves <a title="CROWN CROOKED: Crown Office crime files reveal Scotland&rsquo;s Prosecutors &amp; staff charged with Drugs crimes, Police assault, threats &amp; perverting the course of justice" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/03/crown-crooked-crown-office-crime-files.html"><strong><u>have secret criminal records – on everything from assault, threats &amp; perverting the course of justice to drugs offences</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office compromised by criminal informants among staff who leak details to crooks targeted by Police Scotland and other law enforcement agencies.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office who pride bonuses, junkets and higher salaries before obtaining justice for victims of crime.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office whose Advocate Depute did a runner from the High Court in 2007 during a major trial which resulted in the collapse of the first World’s End murder trial.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office run by a Lord Advocate who called into question the state of the judiciary in order to distract the public from Crown Office failures over the collapse of the same World’s End Trial -<a title="Lord Advocate v Lord Justice General in World's End trial failure fallout" href="http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/lord-advocate-v-lord-justice-general-in.html"><strong><u>Top judge accused Lord Advocate of undermineg the judiciary in statements Angiolini made to the&nbsp; Scottish Parliament</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The same Crown Office which campaigned for the removal of <a href="http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Corroboration"><strong><u>Corroboration</u></strong></a> - one of the cherished few safeguards of Scots law which cuts across every and all criminal cases and evidence presentation in our courts and helps to guard against miscarriage of justice.</p><p align="justify">And by removing corroboration - not, for any lofty aim of upholding justice and protecting the public - mind you.</p><p align="justify">The singular vested interest of the Crown Office in removing corroboration from the justice system was, and remains simply because - the Crown Office are so inadequate at prosecuting crime, they must have multiple chances to parade people in court to secure convictions, no matter how much it costs taxpayers, the reputation of Scots law.</p><p align="justify">Enter the man - no less than the ex Dean of the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20Wolffe%20QC"><strong><u>James Wolffe QC</u></strong></a> - who wanted - and <a title="WOLFFE LAW: Crown Office &lsquo;line of succession&rsquo; falters - First Minister names James Wolffe QC as Lord Advocate &amp; Alison Di Rollo as Solicitor General" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-law-crown-office-line-of.html"><strong><u>was handed the job of Lord Advocate</u></strong></a> - tasked with steering, spinning and manipulating the Crown Office through the choppy murky waters of Scotland’s criminal empires, and not forgetting his own staff’s secret criminal pasts.</p><p align="justify">The accompanying fanfare and typical public relations exercise of Wolffe’s appointment to succeed former Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, came with the usual fluff of a new broom to sweep away crime and criminality.</p><p align="justify">Yet Wolffe himself was - only a few months before his new commission of protecting Scots from big time crime barons - fretting with Scottish Ministers over his precious Faculty of Advocates spending of £320,000 on parts of Parliament House it had occupied without recorded title - yet somehow gained ownership of, reported here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-hall-papers-reveal-councils.html"><strong><u>WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council’s legal action ‘abandoned’, £320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">And Scotland's criminal justice system is so tipped against the rights of victims and accused - as the legal eagles waft in and out of jobs, earlier this week - Wolffe's replacement as Dean at the Faculty of Advocates - Gordon Jackson QC - a leading lawyer who has rightly represented some of Scotland's most hardened criminals and gangsters - lectured the Lord Advocate on the creeping rights of victims in an open letter to the press.</p><p align="justify">Mr Jackson expressed his concern that the “admirable principle” of an independent prosecution service, acting in the public interest, “is being eroded in practice”. Advocates depute and junior fiscals alike, he writes, are seen as reluctant to make decisions but refer cases to their superiors, and prosecutors have admitted to him that they are not following their own judgment on what can be proved “because of the family's position” – referring to the now common practice of meeting victims' families.</p><p align="justify">So now you know the views of the legal profession – picture the following - for it could, or may have already happened to you.</p><p align="justify">Your loved one has been brutally, mercilessly murdered by a criminal – a criminal perhaps not unknown to the authorities.</p><p align="justify">Or a victim of crime or has fallen to an untimely end at the hands of deceitful public servants or an unscrupulous business more interested in profits than the safety of their workforce.</p><p align="justify">Now - right in front of you- you face someone from the very same Crown Office talking at you - not to you - or with you</p><p align="justify">As you may begin to observe – they ask you questions – often the wrong questions - depending on their scheming ahead to figure out if they can secure a conviction or a grubby plea deal spun out by their public relations department as a win for justice. They may even tell you something in a meeting, face to face, then lie about it later. A big fat lie of a lie. No matter. The Lord Advocate will cover it up.</p><p align="justify">They claim they are going to put away the killer, the murderer, the fraudster, the crook who ruined your life, wiped someone’s very existence from life - yet you just know - that same Crown Office career monger has liar written all over their face. Unmissable, isn’t it – like a house on fire. </p><p align="justify">You’ll know it was all true - when the killer, crook or villain gets seven years and out in two.</p><p align="justify">Are you a victim of crime? Are you a victim of a miscarriage of justice? Are you a solicitor performing the testy task of representing accused persons against a prosecution service gone mad? </p><p align="justify">All of you have an interest in making your voice heard to this inquiry. Don’t leave it to vested interests, or the legal profession or those who cloak themselves in good deeds while concealing crime.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Make your voice heard – in writing – to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee by 19 October 2016.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Those submitting are invited to restrict their submission, if at all possible, to the equivalent of approximately four sides of A4. Evidence should be submitted in electronic (preferably MS Word) format by email to </strong><a href="mailto:justicecommittee@parliament.scot"><strong><u>justicecommittee@parliament.scot</u></strong></a><strong> </strong><p align="justify">Organisations and individuals who do not have access to a PC and the internet may submit a hard copy to: <strong>Clerk to the Justice Committee The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH991SP</strong> <p align="justify">For further information on this inquiry please contact the committee clerks by email at <a href="mailto:justicecommittee@parliament.scot"><strong><u>justicecommittee@parliament.scot</u></strong></a> or by phone at 0131 348 6241. <p align="justify"><strong>MSPs TO INVESTIGATE CROWN OFFICE:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee has agreed to hold its first major inquiry of this session into the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), with this remit:</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The COPFS is Scotland’s independent prosecution service, acting in the public interest to help bring offenders to justice. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The core role of the COPFS is to consider reports about crime from the police and other agencies, to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute them, and, if so, to deploy the resources that are necessary to help ensure that justice is done.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Committee’s inquiry will focus on this core role, examining in particular—</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee has agreed to hold its first major inquiry of this session into the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), with this remit:</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>"The COPFS is Scotland's independent prosecution service, acting in the public interest to help bring offenders to justice. The core role of the COPFS is to consider reports about crime from the police and other agencies, to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute them, and, if so, to deploy the resources that are necessary to help ensure that justice is done. The Committee's inquiry will focus on this core role, examining in particular—</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>• The effectiveness and efficiency of the COPFS, and how well it works with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system;</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>• Whether the COPFS has the resources and skillsets it needs to carry out its core role;</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>• The COPFS's responsiveness to new challenges and opportunities including the evolving nature of crime in 21<sup>st</sup> century Scotland, advances in technology, and changes in the delivery of court services that may affect access to justice;</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>• How the COPFS protects and supports witnesses and victims of crime.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The Committee will also take evidence on the role and function of the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland. (The IPS is the independent inspectorate for the COPFS.)</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The inquiry will not consider the COPFS's two other roles of establishing the cause of sudden, unexplained or suspicious deaths or investigating allegations of criminal conduct against police officers, except in relation to the general issue of whether the COPFS has the resources it needs to carry out its purpose."</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Questions to consider:</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Organisations and individuals are invited to submit written views to the Committee in relation to the inquiry. Those submitting views should feel free to address issues raised in the remit in whatever manner they prefer, but it would be particularly appreciated if they could aim to address some or all of the questions set out below, providing specific examples, data or other evidence to back up their views whenever possible—</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>1. Please outline your views on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the COPFS in its core role of considering reports about crime from the police and bringing prosecutions. Are there ways in which the services provided by the COPFS could be improved - for instance, through increased use of technology, further reforms to criminal procedure, or better case management? If so, do those changes also bring risks, in terms of the overall interests of justice or of access to</strong> <strong>justice (bearing in minds the differing needs of people across Scotland; urban and rural communities, economically disadvantaged people, vulnerable groups, etc)?</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>2. Please outline how well you consider the COPFS works with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, so as to provide a "joined up" and complementary service that helps meet the ends of justice. Other stakeholders might, for instance, include the police, defence lawyers, the courts, the prison service, criminal justice social work, and third party organisations working with victims or offenders.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>3. Does the COPFS as presently constituted have the resources and skillsets it needs to carry out its core role effectively? And is it appropriately "future-proofed" - for instance to deal with new technologies available to criminals, changes in the overall profile of crime in 21st century Scotland, or withdrawal from the European Union? If not, what additional capacities does the COPFS need?</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>4. How well does the COPFS respond to the needs of victims of crimes and to witnesses (especially vulnerable witnesses) in criminal cases and meet its legal obligations towards them?</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>5. The Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland is the independent, statutory inspectorate for the COPFS. What is your awareness of the existence and role of the IPS and of its effectiveness in carrying out that role? How effective has it been in carrying out its role? Does it appear to have the resources it needs?</strong> <p align="justify">Committee convener Margaret Mitchell MSP commented: <strong>“The Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service is absolutely fundamental to the operation of an effective justice system in Scotland. This is why this committee has chosen to make it the focus of its first major inquiry.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“MSPs on the previous Justice Committee raised several concerns about the additional pressures that the organisation faced in recent times – including an increase in complex historic sex abuse and domestic abuse cases and new requirements required by legislation.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The COPFS’s responsibilities towards victims and witnesses have also been increasing – and rightly. This has all taken place against a backdrop of tight budgetary settlements in recent years.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“It is likely these significant pressures will continue, so fundamental to this inquiry will be to determine if the COPFS has the resources it needs to bring offenders to justice, and is 'future proofed' to deal with new challenges.”</strong></p><p align="justify">If you feel the Scottish Parliament should be asking many more questions of our prosecutors, don’t forge to make your views known to your own MSP, even ask them to go along to the hearings and make your issues more aware to the Justice Committee.</p><p align="justify">For previous articles on the Crown Office, read more here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Crown%20Office"><strong><u>Scotland's Crown Office - in Crown detail</u></strong></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/inquiry-of-crown-scottish-parliaments.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-4869718337929952615Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:55:00 +00002016-09-15T16:55:58.065+01:00City of Edinburgh CouncilEric McQueenFaculty of AdvocatesFreedom of InformationLaigh HallLord GillLord PresidentParliament HouseScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish GovernmentWOLFFE’D HALL: Edinburgh Council admit defeat in Parliament House titles fiasco - officials no longer pursuing recovery of Scotland’s top court buildings to common good public ownership<p align="justify"><em><a title="Parliament House- The lost titles &amp; saga of Wolffe Hall" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7cnNKSlF4LWRldU0" width="328" align="left" height="492"></a>Top court now owned by ‘public body’ run by judges</em>. <strong>THE</strong> <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk"><strong><u>City of Edinburgh Council</u></strong></a> have this week confirmed no further action is being taken by the council to recover ownership to the common good of <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><strong><u>Parliament House</u></strong></a> – the seat of Scotland’s top courts.</p><p align="justify">In a statement issued to the media, a spokesperson for the City of Edinburgh Council said in relation to Parliament House: <strong>“We are not pursuing legal action regarding ownership of the Parliament House.The building, however,&nbsp; remains in public ownership and is publicly accessible.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS) now have full title to Parliament House – granted to them by Scottish Ministers. <p align="justify">However as the SCTS is a public body which is effectively controlled by a quango commanded by Scotland’s top judges - the status of “public ownership” may well fall to be a loosely applied term given how the titles came to be in the possession of the courts after Scottish Ministers took ownership of Parliament House from the common good. <p align="justify">The <a title="WOLFFE HALL: Edinburgh Council racks up &pound;53K legal bill in failed bid to recover ownership of Parliament House - as papers reveal Faculty of Advocates &ldquo;occupied&rdquo; Laigh Hall for 150 years without recorded title deeds" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/wolffe-hall-edinburgh-council-racks-up.html"><strong><u>City of Edinburgh Council’s costly £53K legal action to recover the lost titles of Parliament House</u></strong></a> – which was destined to be heard in the very same court buildings – was abandoned almost as instantly as papers were served by the council’s legal agents on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Scottish Ministers- reported in further detail here:&nbsp; <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-hall-papers-reveal-councils.html"><strong><u>WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council’s legal action ‘abandoned’, £320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">Commenting on the Laigh Hall – a large area of building which runs underneath Parliament House and was ‘gifted’ to the <a href="http://www.advocates.org.uk/"><strong><u>Faculty of Advocates</u></strong></a> by the Scottish Government, a Council spokesperson, said: <strong>“Shortly after Scottish Ministers registered these buildings they transferred the title for Laigh Hall to the facility of advocates. We understand that this transfer is subject to Scottish Ministers having first refusal to reaquire the property in the event of a sale.”</strong> <p align="justify">A spokesperson for the council also confirmed earlier moves by Edinburgh Council to ‘persuade’ the SCTS &amp; Scottish Government to voluntarily hand back ownership, were also at an end. <p align="justify">DOI has previously published documents released under Freedom of Information legislation which revealed lawyers representing trustees of the Faculty of Advocates informed <a href="https://www.ros.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Registers of Scotland</u></strong></a> (RoS) that the Laigh Hall – part of the Parliament House complex - had been occupied by the Faculty for some 150 years, with no recorded titles – yet Scottish Ministers and Registers of Scotland went ahead and granted ownership to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify">Last year Diary of Injustice<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/wolffe-hall-as-edinburgh-city-council.html"><strong><u>reported on the City of Edinburgh Council’s efforts to recover the titles to Parliament House</u></strong></a> after land reform campaigner Andy Wightman – now an MSP - revealed <a href="http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4172"><strong><u>land titles to the buildings of Scotland’s top courts</u></strong></a> were ‘gifted’ by Scottish Ministers to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify">A disclosure of <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QUxVRVZ3bGtFdkU/view"><strong><u>eighty eight pages of documents</u></strong></a> released to DOI under Freedom of Information legislation - revealed at the time the Scottish Government had no plans to act over their handing over of the Parliament Hall land titles to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ZW1wbHhvXzhrQ1k/"><strong><u>Documents released by the Scottish Government</u></strong></a> and published by DOI also revealed the former Dean of the Faculty of Advocates - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20Wolffe%20QC"><strong><u>James Wolffe QC</u></strong></a> (now Lord Advocate) - refused to give any expectation of success on attempts by Edinburgh Council to recover public ownership of titles to Parliament House and the Laigh Hall. <p align="justify">In a separate 47 page<strong> </strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dUN4WWhfdEprcnc/view"><strong><u>Freedom of Information document release</u></strong></a> by<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.ros.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Registers of Scotland</u></strong></a> (RoS)– the body charged with registering land ownership in Scotland – several documents highlight Scottish Government civil servants scrambling to protect Ministers from questions over the titles loss in the Scottish Parliament while vested legal interests are of a clear persuasion titles should be handed over to the Faculty of Advocates.</p><p align="justify">Records of titles to the Laigh Hall – Parliament House – Queen Street – ownership stands in the name of “<strong>SIDNEY NEIL BRAILSFORD Queen's Counsel, Treasurer of HONOURABLE THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES Edinburgh, as Trustee and in Trust for said Faculty”</strong>. Sidney Brailsford is none other than High Court Judge Lord Brailsford. <p align="justify">Scotland’s current First Minister – Nicola Sturgeon also weighed in on the debate, but only after being asked questions during a session of First Minister’s Questions. <p align="justify">The First Minister gave little indication the Scottish Government were willing to ensure titles were handed back to the City of Edinburgh Council : <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJg5o4vPWJM"><strong><u>Parliament House handed over to Faculty of Advocates FMQ's Nicola Sturgeon 19 February 2015</u></strong></a> and as the Council have now confirmed, the matter is closed.</p><p align="justify"><strong>DOOMED TOP COURT TO UP STICKS?</strong> <p align="justify">Amid rumours of plans loosely based around the Scottish Government’s desire for “modern justice centres” to one day move the Court of Session out of Parliament House, questions remain on who will ultimately benefit financially from any redevelopment of the imposing, gargantuan buildings which make up Scotland’s top court and power seat of the judiciary. <p align="justify">The sprawling complex of high value, if aging buildings - located in the centre of Edinburgh – are described as “inaccessible” “Victorian” and “unfit for modern court needs” in loose discussions between interested parties and land developers. <p align="justify">However, development possibilities for Parliament House reveal a host of difficulties in turning “an overly ornate set of imposing buildings” into a mixture of office, business and residential units. <p align="justify">Concerns of resistance from the legal profession, elements of the judiciary and a “public outcry” appear to be uppermost in the minds of developers and politicians who may wish to move the judges out of their plush Parliament House headquarters to a <strong>“greenfield site”</strong>. <p align="justify">In the last few years, ‘improvements’ to Parliament House saw £58 million of taxpayers cash spent on updating the constantly crumbling court buildings - which also house the offices of Scotland’s powerful judicial clique and their top judge – the Lord President, currently Lord Carloway (real name Colin Sutherland). <p align="justify">Some in the legal fraternity have since pointed to the recent multi million pound expenditure on improvements as part of a move to clean up Parliament House before a possible transfer of court staff and court functions and eventual sale of the buildings to the private sector. <p align="justify">It also emerged during hearings at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee in the summer of 2013 - the Scottish Court Service (SCS) – the predecessor to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) had previously demanded around £120 million of taxpayers cash be spent on renovating Parliament House. <p align="justify"><strong>£60M TO ‘IMPROVE’ PARLIAMENT HOUSE:</strong> <p align="justify">In the summer of 2013,&nbsp; Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill – head of the Scottish Court Service Board, and the Scottish Court Service Chief Executive Eric McQueen appeared before MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to give evidence on court closures and the millions spent on Parliament House – yet neither the judge nor the Courts chief mentioned their astonishing secret to the MSPs present – that the title to Scotland’s highest court buildings had been swiped by the Faculty of Advocates in a deal on the sly with Scottish Ministers. <p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VYJ3cP5Gghk" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe><p align="justify">During <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJ3cP5Gghk"><strong><u>questions from Justice Committee MSPs</u></strong></a>, SCS Chief Executive Eric McQueen gave evidence on the massive £60 million taxpayer funded spend on Parliament House. <p align="justify">The Court Service Chief told MSPs: <strong>“We are just coming to the end of the Parliament house contract; in total, the budget for it was £65 million and I think that we expect the final spend to be in the low £60 millions. The project has been delivered on budget, on time and on quality. How it has been delivered is a tribute to the Scottish Court Service.</strong> <p align="justify">McQueen continued:<strong> “I will give a potted history of the Parliament house situation. About 10 years ago, a scheme was in place that was going to run to way over £120 million. That was brought to a stop to allow us to reassess things and to consider the best strategy. At the same time, we looked at a business case for moving away from Parliament house altogether and having a development on a greenfield or brownfield site on the outskirts of Edinburgh. The major problem with Parliament house is that it is a grade A listed building and is a site of special historical interest. It should be a landmark building for the whole of Scotland.”</strong> <p align="justify">In an intervention, the Convener of the Justice Committee – Christine Grahame MSP said: <strong>“I am glad that you did not move to a greenfield site. It would have been a bit like going to B&amp;Q. I do not mean to malign B&amp;Q, but I like the old Parliament house building.”</strong> <p align="justify">Eric McQueen replied : “<strong>Had the decision been taken to move out of Parliament house, that asset would have been left with the Scottish Government. The infrastructure and the services were shot, and there was no fire certificate in place for the building. It would have cost as much to move out as to redevelop the building. From the point of view of the benefit to the nation and to the Scottish Government's purse, the investment of the £65 million in Parliament house over that five or six year period was quite a sensible business case decision.”</strong> <p align="justify">Sitting beside Eric McQueen was Lord President Brian Gill, who did not at any stage of the meeting volunteer information to the Justice Committee in relation to the titles arrangements of Parliament House, despite the multi million pound taxpayer funded refurbishment. <p align="justify">Previous reports on the loss of public ownership of Scotland’s top court – Parliament House can be found here: <a title="Parliament House - The lost titles to the City of Edinburgh" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><strong><u>Parliament House - The lost titles to the City of Edinburgh</u></strong></a>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/wolffed-hall-edinburgh-council-admit.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-8075341063518153723Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:31:00 +00002016-09-10T13:11:09.155+01:00Judiciary of ScotlandLady SmithLord CarlowayLord GillPetition 1458register of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish ParliamentSheriff Alastair Dunlop QCSTILL BANKING, M’LORDS: Judicial quango in charge of Scotland’s Courts & Tribunals remains mired in financial links to Banks, investment funds, insurance, property & corporate vested interests<p align="justify"><em><a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals, mercenaries, tax avoidance &amp; banks fined for financial markets manipulation" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7RTY5d1ZRN1pQdDg" width="328" align="left" height="450"></a>Banks &amp; corporate interests are ‘quids in’ for judges.</em> <strong>THE LATEST</strong>&nbsp;<a title="Register of Shareholdings - Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Qi1SZG41OUh1TG8/"><strong><u>snapshot of financial investments</u></strong></a> held by a select few members of<strong> </strong><a title="Judiciary of Scotland" href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/"><strong><u>Scotland’s ultra secretive judiciary</u></strong></a> who sit on the judge-controlled body in charge of the courts – reveals banks convicted of rate-rigging, insurance cartels, property and corporate vested interests - remain favoured havens for judicial wealth.</p><p align="justify">Registers of Interests declaring the shareholdings of Scotland’s top judges – released by the <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS) - in response to a Freedom of Information request – show minor changes in the pro-banks &amp; big business investment structures of a handful of leading judges - since the issue was first revealed in the media and <a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals, mercenaries, tax avoidance &amp; banks fined for financial markets manipulation" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html" target="_blank"><strong><u>reported in further detail by Diary of Injustice in 2014</u></strong></a>. </p><p align="justify">However, Scotland’s top judge – Lord President <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> – who earns a salary of £220,655 a year – is listed under shareholdings in the register as holding “none”.</p><p align="justify">Lord Justice Clerk <a title="Lady Dorrian" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lady%20Dorrian"><strong><u>Lady Dorrian</u></strong></a> - who earns £213,125 a year - is also listed under shareholdings in the same register as holding “none”.</p><p align="justify">Three other members of the judiciary who currently sit on the powerful Scottish Courts &amp; Tribunals Service Board – also have nothing to declare in terms of shareholdings – leaving former Lord President <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a>,<strong>&nbsp;</strong><a title="Lady Smith" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lady%20Smith"><strong><u>Lady Smith</u></strong></a> and Justice of the Peace Johan Findlay as the only three remaining judges to declare any financial investments.</p><p align="justify">The existence of the shareholdings register of a select few judges came to the attention of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee who have been conducting a three year probe into proposals to create a judicial interests register - after <a title="Pressure grows for register of judges' interests as sheriff hears Tesco case while holding shares in company" href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/pressure-grows-for-register-of-judges-interests-as-sheriff-hears-tesco-case-while-hol.24068177"><strong><u>details of judges' shareholdings were revealed in an investigation published by the Sunday Herald newspaper</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The Sunday Herald investigation also revealed <strong>Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC – who presided over a court hearing involving Tesco – held shares in the supermarket giant yet did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case.</strong></p><p align="justify">And, as a result of further investigations by the Scottish Sun newspaper - it was revealed the same Sheriff Principal Alistair Dunlop (who was also a member of the powerful Scottish Court Service Board until leaving this role in 2015) – held shares in companies convicted of paying bribes in Iraq, and China - reported in further detail here:<strong> </strong><a title="PROCEEDS OF CRIME: Judicial Interests investigation reveals top Sheriff Principal has shares in company fined &pound;13.9million for Iraq bribes case &amp; mining giant caught in China bribe scandal" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/05/proceeds-of-crime-judicial-interests.html"><strong><u>PROCEEDS OF CRIME: Judicial Interests investigation reveals top Sheriff Principal has shares in company fined £13.9million for Iraq bribes case &amp; mining giant caught in China bribe scandal</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">The current <a title="Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board Register of Shareholdings" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Qi1SZG41OUh1TG8/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board Register of Shareholdings</u></strong></a> reveals the following declarations of shareholdings:</p><p align="justify"><strong>Lord President - Rt Hon Lord Carloway: None<br>Lord Justice Clerk - Rt Hon Lady Dorrian: None<br>President of Scottish Tribunals - Rt Hon Lady Smith: Artemis Fund Managers, Barclays, Blackrock AM, Brown Advisory, Goldman Sachs, Global Access, Henderson Investment, Ishares PLC, JP Morgan, Lazard Fund Managers, Pimco Global, Vanguard Funds PLC, Fundrock Management CO Gsquaretrix.<br>Sheriff Principal Duncan L Murray: None<br>Sheriff Iona McDonald: None<br>Sheriff A Grant McCulloch: None <br>Johan Findlay OBE JP: Aviva, Vodaphone, Santander, Unilever, Norwich Union, Legal &amp; General, Fidelity Funds Network, Lloyds Banking Group, Thus Group, HBOS, Trafficmaster, Standard Life.<br>Dr Joseph Morrow QC: None<br>Lord President – Rt Hon Lord Gill (note: Lord Gill retired on 31 May 2015 and was succeed by Lord Carloway). :Henderson UK Growth Fund Retail Class Acc, Newton Global Equity Fund, Aviva Investors UK Equity Fund, Scottish Widows UK Growth Sub-Fund, HSBC Balanced Fund (Retail Acc), Royal Mail Plc, TSB Group Plc, Urban and Civil Plc, Vestry Court Ltd.</strong></p><p align="justify">Among the non-judicial members of the same SCTS Board, declarations in their registers of interests, also disclosed via FOI legislation reveal:</p><p align="justify"><strong>Eric McQueen: None<br>Dr Kirsty J Hood QC: None<br>Simon J D Catto: Aberdeen Football Club PLC, Scottish Power UK Plc, Royal Mail PLc. <br>Joe Al-Gharabally: RBS, Ryanair, Aviva, AT &amp; T<br>Professor R Hugh MacDougall: None<br>Colonel David McIlroy: None<br>Anthony McGrath: (note - Mr McGrath was a Board member until 31 December 2015 and was succeeded by Col David McIlroy, following completion of his term of office): Accys Technology, Alexander Mining, Apple, Ashley House, Asian Citrus, Augean, Avanti Comms, Barclays Bank Bond, Billings Services, Camkids, Cell Therapeutics, Centamin, Chariot Oil, Chemring, Coal Of Africa, Consolidated General Minerals, Correro, Cupid, East West Resources, Emblaze, Essenden, e-Trade Financial, Fox Marble, Globo plc , Goldenport Holdings, Goldplat, Heritage Oil, HSBC Holdings, Imic, Infrastrata, Interpublic, Jubilee Platinum, Lloyds Banking, Magnolia Petroleum, Mobile Streams, Norseman Gold, Polo Resources, Pure Bioscience, Quindell, Reach4entertainment, Resource Holdings, Royal Bank of Scotland, Saltire Taverns, Stagecoach, Standard Chartered, STV, Tanfield, Tower resources, Volga Gas, Westminster Group.</strong></p><p align="justify">However, missing from any register is property ownership by judges and their relatives, together with interests in real estate, buy to let and property companies – a well known and profitable area of big business for members of the judiciary and their family members. <p align="justify">Big ticket items such as property are suspiciously omitted from the meagre financial declarations of high earning elite judges - who remain eager to keep their vast interests in property off the books and out of reach from potential accusations of conflict of interest in swathes of land &amp; property related court hearings going through the courts. <p align="justify">The very limited disclosures of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Board members also contain no references to outside earnings &amp; work, relationships to law firms, big business and more detailed declarations which may be picked up by a fully published register of judicial interests as is currently being considered by MSPs. <p align="justify">The three year probe by the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee on proposals to create a register of judicial interests: <a href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a> previously heard ‘claims’ from Scotland’s former top judge – Lord Brian Gill – that a register listing all financial interests of judges was “unworkable” for the entire judiciary. </p><p align="justify">However, some members of the Petitions Committee have voiced their unease during previous committee hearings that such a register as already exists for a handful of judges who sit on the SCTS Board - could not be implemented for the entire judiciary in Scotland.</p><p align="justify">If the judicial transparency proposal becomes reality, all members of Scotland’s judiciary - instead of just the elite few who sit on the board of the Scottish Courts - will be required to declare their vast and varied interests including their backgrounds, personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land interests, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.</p><p align="justify">The proposal to require all members of the judiciary to declare their interests gained cross party support from msps during a debate on the petition - held at the Scottish Parliament on 7 October 2014, and reported along with video footage and the official record, here: <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>Debating the Judges</u></strong></a>. MSPs overwhelmingly supported a motion urging the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. </p><p align="justify"><strong>COMPANIES CONVICTED OF BRIBES, &amp; SCOTTISH JUDGES WHO INVEST IN THEM:</strong></p><p align="justify">The Scottish Sun newspaper reported how one judge – Sheriff Principal Alistair Dunlop – held shares in Weir Group – who were hit with a £13.9m Proceeds of Crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.</p><p align="justify"><strong><a title="Judge has shares in bribe firm" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/05/proceeds-of-crime-judicial-interests.html"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XCABap7aNqc/U3N5CkwYN1I/AAAAAAAAA8o/2rGnQwAuj-o/s400/Judge%2520has%2520shares%2520in%2520bribe%2520firm%2520-%2520Scottish%2520Sun%252011%2520May%25202014.jpg" width="271" align="left" height="400"></a>JUDGE HAS SHARES IN BRIBE FIRM</strong></p><p align="justify"><a title="Judge has shares in bribes firm" href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/808021/judge-has-shares-in-the-bribe-firm/"><strong><u>Stocks Register Plea</u></strong></a> <p align="justify"><strong>EXCLUSIVE: by Russell Findlay <br>Scottish Investigations Editor The Scottish Sun on Sunday May 11 2014</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>A TOP judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Dunlop - the most senior sheriff in Tayside, Central and Fife - must declare his interests as a Scottish Court Service Board member but they are not made public.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Last night campaigner Peter Cherbi - who led calls for a register to improve transparency - said "I believe judges like Sheriff Principal Dunlop cannot hold investments in firms guilty of breaking the law"</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Tory MSP John Lamont added "The public would fully expect judges to be transparent. A register would improve public confidence."</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Dunlop declined to comment but the Judicial Office for Scotland said investments were "a matter for the individual".</strong> <p align="justify">A full listing of Sheriff Principal Alistair Dunlop’s declared shareholdings - published by Diary of Injustice in August 2014 – revealed a significant list of companies caught up in allegations of corruption around the world.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Sheriff Principal R A Dunlop QC:</strong> <strong>Astrazeneca, BHP Billiton, Blackrock AM UK Gold &amp; General, Bluescope Steel, BNY Mellon Newton Global, CG Real Return Inc, Close Brothers Group, Diageo, Findlay Park FDS American Smaller Cos., G4S, Henderson Global Invs, ING Global Real Estate Securities, Intercontinental Hotels, JP Morgan Private Equity, Lomond Shipping Co, Lloyds Banking, M&amp;G (Guernsey) Global Leaders, National Grid, Oakley Capital Investments, Origo Partners, Pernod Ricard, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Bank of Scotland, Royal Dutch Shell, Scottish Oriental Smaller Cos, Tesco, Vodafone, Weir Group.</strong></p><p align="justify">Further details including information on criminal cases involving companies in the investment portfolios of Scotland's judiciary is reported here: <a title="JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals, mercenaries, tax avoidance &amp; banks fined for financial markets manipulation" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/judicial-rich-list-register-reveals-top.html"><strong><u>JUDICIAL RICH LIST: Register reveals top judges investments in dodgy justice system providers, companies linked to international bribes scandals</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/still-banking-mlords-judicial-quango-in.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)44tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-8475144401152899873Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:46:00 +00002016-09-07T16:46:35.303+01:00Judiciary of ScotlandLord CarlowayLord GillPetition 1458Petitions CommitteeProfessor Alan Patersonregister of interestsRegister of Interests for JudgesScottish ParliamentTransparencyJUDICIAL REGISTER: Scottish Parliament probe on judges' register of interests hears from top Law Professor - room for widening transparency to include more than pecuniary interests, current recusals register is not complete.<p align="justify"><em><a title="Legal Academic gives evidence on proposal to create Register of Judges' Interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7V253VF9iTGZhaVU" width="340" align="left" height="231"></a>Register of judges’ interests good for</em><em> transparency.</em><strong> A TOP </strong>legal academic has told the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee there is room for improvement in proposals to create a register of interests for Scotland’s ultra secretive judiciary as called for in <a title="Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary." href="http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/registerofjudicialinterests"><strong><u>Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">In a written submission to MSPs, <a title="Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde" href="https://www.strath.ac.uk/staff/patersonalanprof/"><strong><u>Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde</u></strong></a> told the Public Petitions Committee <strong>“in terms of accountability there is a clear link between the thinking behind calls for a Register of Judicial Interests and the concept of Judicial Recusal”.</strong></p><p align="justify">However, the Law Professor criticised the weakness of content of the current “<a title="THE RECUSED: Scotland&rsquo;s &pound;30.6m a year judges refuse to declare financial links in first year of recusal register as new details reveal former Lord Advocate who prosecuted Lockerbie case steps down in court hearing" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-recused-scotlands-306m-year-judges.html"><strong><u>Recusal Register</u></strong></a>” – <a title="Scotland&rsquo;s top judge, a private meeting to dodge remit of full Holyrood Petitions Committee questions and the call for a register of judicial interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/02/scotlands-top-judge-private-meeting-to.html"><strong><u>set up by Lord Gill as a result of a private meeting with MSPs</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Professor Paterson told MSPs: <strong>“The Public Register of Judicial Recusals is indeed to be welcomed but it only records the cases in which Scottish judges have actually recused themselves, not the cases in which they have been asked to recuse themselves and have declined to do so, far less those in which they might reasonably have been asked to recuse themselves but were not.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“In short, we cannot always tell if judges are recusing themselves or declining to recuse themselves in the right cases. One measure which might assist with that issue is to ask whether the decision as to recusal should be left to the judge who has been challenged.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The judicial transparency proposals – first debated at Holyrood’s <a title="DECLARE YOUR INTERESTS M&rsquo;LORDS : Scottish Parliament seek views on Public Petition calling for a Register of Interests of Scotland&rsquo;s wealthy Judges &amp; Sheriffs" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/01/declare-your-interests-mlords-scottish.html"><strong><u>Public Petitions Committee in January 2013</u></strong></a> - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests – containing information on judges’ backgrounds, figures relating to personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business &amp; family connections inside &amp; outside of the legal profession, membership of organisations, property and land, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.</p><p align="justify">A full debate in Holyrood’s main chamber was held <a title="Cross party support for judicial register of interests" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/11/debating-judges-cross-party-support-for.html"><strong><u>at the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2014</u></strong></a> - ending in a motion calling on the Scottish Government to create a register of judicial interests. The motion was widely supported by MSPs from all political parties.</p><p align="justify">The written evidence from Professor Paterson to MSPs comes after the Petitions Committee were informed of the Law Professor’s work on judicial transparency.</p><p align="justify">Published as quotes on the Scottish Parliament Petition Committee’s website, references from a publication by Professor Paterson: <a title="&ldquo;Lawyers and the Public Good: Democracy in Action&rdquo;" href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/english-legal-system/lawyers-and-public-good-democracy-action?format=PB"><strong><u>“Lawyers and the Public Good: Democracy in Action”</u></strong></a> - give an account of how registers of interest could enhance judicial transparency.</p><p align="justify">In the book, Professor Paterson writes: <strong>“Slightly surprisingly, the justices of the UK Supreme Court, who have rightly in my view been praised for being more transparent on a range of fronts than the House of Lords, have chosen on this front to be less transparent than they were in the House. In the House they were subject to a Register of Interests, but&nbsp; in&nbsp; February&nbsp; 2010s5 they indicated that they&nbsp; had&nbsp; decided&nbsp; not&nbsp; to&nbsp; have&nbsp; a Register of Interests in the Supreme Court since (1) other judges in the United Kingdom do not have to complete a Register of Interests and (2) it would not be appropriate or indeed feasible for there to be a comprehensive register of the interests of all the justices. With the greatest of respect to the justices, I wonder if they have got this one right.”&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The Supreme Court along with the rest of the (senior) judiciary is an arm of government, and democratic accountability normally means that we expect those who govern us to declare&nbsp; their&nbsp; interests&nbsp; -&nbsp; and not just on an as and when basis. A detailed Register of Interests might even have obviated the Pinochet affair.” </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“My third route to enhancing the accountability of the judiciary is to introduce greater measures of disclosure and transparency. Each and every justice of the US Supreme Court has to complete a detailed annual return setting out all their financial interests, including all shareholdings and offices held in other organisations. Moreover, when they have been nominated for appointment they are&nbsp; required to complete a very detailed questionnaire&nbsp; about&nbsp; their interests, publications and membership of organisations whether it be the masons, churches or golf clubs (single sex or otherwise).”&nbsp; </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“Recusal is a tricky area and I'm not sure that the answer is always to leave it to the judge who has been challenged to determine whether he or she has a disqualifying interest. I am confirmed in this&nbsp;&nbsp; line of thinking by Grant Hammond, the judicial author of what is now the leading textbook in the area. The legal test is that laid down in Porter v. Magill* namely, would the hypothetical fair-minded, fully informed independent layperson having&nbsp; considered the facts conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. My difficulty&nbsp; is&nbsp; how&nbsp; the&nbsp; judges&nbsp; are&nbsp; to&nbsp; know&nbsp; the&nbsp; answer to that question.”</strong>&nbsp;</p><p align="justify">PE1458/XX Judicial Register of Interests Petition PE1458&nbsp; </p><p align="justify"><strong><a title="Professor Alan Paterson to Public Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament - Petition PE1458 Register of Judicial Interests" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VC1GMjc5YV85Y28/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=0B3y3fRjsv8Y7UjRQSDFfZG1mTWc" width="260" align="left" height="379"></a></strong>Writing in <a title="Professor Alan Paterson to Public Petitions Committee - Petition PE1458 Register of Judicial Interests" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7VC1GMjc5YV85Y28/view"><strong><u>a letter to the Public Petitions Committee</u></strong></a> prior to the summer recess,<strong> </strong>Professor Patterson told MSPs:<strong> I refer to your letter of 18 March 2016 requesting that I write to you indicating my views on the action called for in the petition. I am not sure that I have a great deal to add to what I said in my Hamlyn lecture - A Paterson, Lawyers and the Public Good (Cambridge University Press, 2012) at pp.152-4. I indicated there, that at least at the level of final appeal courts there was an argument for enhancing the accountability of the judiciary by introducing greater measures of disclosure and transparency.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Each and every Supreme Court justice in the US Supreme Court has to complete a detailed annual return setting out their financial interests including gifts and hospitality. When appointed they also have to complete a comprehensive questionnaire about their interests, publications and memberships of clubs and organisations (including the Masons).&nbsp; I am not aware that these requirements have caused particular problems in the USA.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>When they were members of the House of Lords, the Law Lords had to complete a register of interests (which has since been considerably strengthened) and it was therefore a surprise to me that these same judges when they became UK Supreme Court Justices declined to have a Register of Interests, a position which they still adhere to. This despite the fact that Lord Hoffmann by failing to declare his involvement with Amnesty International (which might now appear in a Register of Interests) precipitated an unprecedented crisis in the House of Lords, the aftermath of which was felt for nearly a decade.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>That said, whether a Register of Judicial Interests which is limited to pecuniary interests would be a worthwhile introduction for the Court of Session and the Sheriff Court is a difficult issue (as the evidence provided to the Petitions Committee has demonstrated) and one on which I am not sure I have a concluded view.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>However, in terms of accountability there is a clear link between the thinking behind calls for a Register of Judicial Interests and the concept of Judicial Recusal. Here I think there is room for improvement in Scotland, particularly if there is to be no Register of Judicial Interests.&nbsp; </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>The Public Register of Judicial Recusals is indeed to be welcomed but it only records the cases in which Scottish judges have actually recused themselves, not the cases in which they have been asked to recuse themselves and have declined to do so, far less those in which they might reasonably have been asked to recuse themselves but were not. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>In short, we cannot always tell if judges are recusing themselves or declining to recuse themselves in the right cases. One measure which might assist with that issue is to ask whether the decision as to recusal should be left to the judge who has been challenged. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>I am confirmed in this line of thinking by Grant Hammond, the judicial author of what is now the leading textbook in the area Judicial Recusal (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009). </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Just as we no longer leave decisions on contempt of court which relate to attacks on the judge to be decided by the judge in question, so it could be argued that requests for judicial recusal should be handled on an expedited basis by a bench of at least two different judges.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>I hope these thoughts have been of assistance. Yours sincerely Professor Alan Paterson OBE</strong>&nbsp; </p><p align="justify">While Professor Paterson said in his letter to MSPs he had no concluded view on whether a register limited only to pecuniary interests of judges would be worthwhile, it is widely understood in the media the proposals before the committee do actually call for a much wider and encompassing register of interests for the judiciary - similar to the same registers of interest which exist for politicians and public bodies across the country.</p><p align="justify">The petition’s call for a more complete register of interests was brought to the fore during an <strong></strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><u><strong>evidence session</strong></u></a> with Lord Brian Gill held in November 2015 – during which Committee member John Wilson made it clear in questions to the judge that any register of judicial interests proposed by the petition was expected to include much more than pecuniary interests.</p><p align="justify">The lengthy Scottish Parliament probe on judicial interests - now about to enter it’s fourth year – has previously heard evidence from key players in the justice system who all support the introduction of a register of judicial interests.</p><p align="justify">During an<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/09/as-scotlands-top-judge-battles-on.html"><strong><u>evidence session held at Holyrood in September 2013</u></strong></a> – Moi Ali, Scotland’s first ever <a href="http://judicialcomplaintsreviewer.org.uk/"><strong><u>Judicial Complaints Reviewer</u></strong></a> (JCR)- backed the creation of a register of judicial interests - providing MSPs with a powerful first hand, honest and highly detailed account of the workings of Scotland’s judiciary and lack of judicial transparency &amp; accountability. <p align="justify">Current Judicial Complaints Reviewer <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Gillian%20Thompson"><strong><u>Gillian Thompson</u></strong></a> also backed plans to require judges to declare their interests, during an<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/08/register-mlord-former-top-judge-brian.html"><strong><u>evidence&nbsp; session of the Public Petitions Committee held in June 2015</u></strong></a>. <p align="justify">However, the move to create a register of judges’ interests was bitterly resisted by retired top judge Lord Gill, who spent two years of his short three year term as Lord President -&nbsp; fighting the Petitions Committee on moves to have him appear before MSPs to give evidence.</p><p align="justify">Diary of Injustice recently <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/02/lord-no-way-top-judge-lord-carloway.html"><strong><u>reported on written evidence</u></strong></a> provided by Scotland’s latest top judge - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Carloway"><strong><u>Lord Carloway</u></strong></a> to the Public Petitions Committee on plans to require judges to declare their interests. <p align="justify">Lord Carloway (<em>real name:</em> Colin Sutherland) is a known opponent of the judicial transparency proposals. <p align="justify">Earlier this year, Lord Carloway told MSPs: “<strong>The proper administration of justice could be inhibited by the disclosure of the judiciary's otherwise confidential financial arrangements. In that connection, there is the possibility that an individual judge may be the subject of misconceived criticism, deriving from the disclosure of personal financial information, where those interests are tangential and de minimis.”</strong> <p align="justify">The move by Scotland’s latest Lord President to undermine the Scottish Parliament’s efforts to increase judicial transparency follows a bitter three year campaign against the petition - led by Carloway’s former boss – <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Lord%20Gill"><strong><u>Lord Brian Gill</u></strong></a> – which culminated in an ‘aggressive’<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/judge-another-day-sparks-fly-as-top.html"><u><strong>evidence session</strong></u></a> with the former top judge at Holyrood in November 2015. <p align="justify">Lord Gill - who spent two of his three year term fighting the judicial transparency proposals - was dubbed “<a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2013/06/scotlands-top-judge-throws-scotland-act.html"><strong><u>Lord No-No</u></strong></a>” for his refusals to give evidence to MSPs on judges’ undeclared links to big business, secret criminal records &amp; hidden wealth, handed the claim to the Scottish Parliament. <p align="justify">Refusing several invitations from MSPs to attend the Petitions Committee in person, <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/11/eight-letters-mlord-top-judge-who.html"><strong><u>the top judge sent a series of letters to MSPs</u></strong></a> - demanding the judiciary remain exempt from the public’s expectation of transparency in Government and those in public life. <p align="justify">As the petition was debated at Holyrood in the Lord President’s absence, it was revealed <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2014/08/lord-jet-set-scotlands-top-judge-lord.html"><strong><u>Lord Gill billed taxpayers for a five day state visit to Qatar</u></strong></a>. The top judge also travelled to numerous other international destinations – all charged to taxpayers. <p align="justify">An investigation by the Scottish Sun newspaper also revealed <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7Z0hkTm9zaDhmWW8/"><strong><u>Scotland's top judges spent £26,000 on thirty three international trips funded by taxpayers</u></strong></a> - including journeys to destinations such as Russia, Israel, Switzerland,Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania. <p align="justify">Previous articles on the lack of transparency within Scotland’s judiciary, investigations by Diary of Injustice including reports from the media, and video footage of debates at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee can be found here :<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Register%20of%20Interests%20for%20Judges"><u><strong>A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary</strong></u></a></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/judicial-register-scottish-parliament.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-5994982986243928560Mon, 05 Sep 2016 16:40:00 +00002016-09-05T17:47:32.082+01:00City of Edinburgh CouncilFaculty of AdvocatesFreedom of InformationJames Wolffe QCLaigh HallParliament HouseRegisters of ScotlandScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish GovernmentWOLFFE HALL: Edinburgh Council racks up £53K legal bill in failed bid to recover ownership of Parliament House - as papers reveal Faculty of Advocates “occupied” Laigh Hall for 150 years without recorded title deeds<p align="justify"><em><a title="WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council&rsquo;s legal action &lsquo;abandoned&rsquo;, &pound;320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall &amp; new Lord Advocate refused to give expectations on move to recover public ownership of Parliament House" style="href: &quot;http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/wolffe-hall-&quot;" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-hall-papers-reveal-councils.html"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1sC_qCD4mW0/V1mDDenglvI/AAAAAAAACe4/udGjtJxIci4lDgrJIT0TZZjpFMEiey9RQCCo/s400/Wolffe%2BHall%2B2016.jpg" width="350" align="left" height="256"></a></em><em>Costs mount for return of Scotland’s top court buildings</em>.&nbsp; <strong>AN UNSUCCESSFUL </strong>legal action by the <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk"><strong><u>City of Edinburgh Council</u></strong></a> to recover public ownership of <a title="Parliament House" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Parliament%20House"><strong><u>Parliament House</u></strong></a> – the sprawling, high value land estate situated in Edinburgh‘s old town comprising Scotland's top court buildings - has so-far cost taxpayers £52,991 - according to figures released to the media.</p><p align="justify">The costs of legal advice and other legal services provided to the council, revealed in a Freedom of Information disclosure, list law firm Burness Paul as the largest single expense at £38,726, followed by Counsel’s fees listed as £10,620K and ‘experts’ and other professional fees reaching a total of £2,400 after VAT.</p><p align="justify">However, the council’s legal action to recover the lost titles of Parliament House – which was to be heard in the very same court buildings it had lost ownership of – was later abandoned - reported in further detail here:&nbsp; <a title="WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council&rsquo;s legal action &lsquo;abandoned&rsquo;, &pound;320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-hall-papers-reveal-councils.html"><strong><u>WOLFFE HALL: Papers reveal Council’s legal action ‘abandoned’, £320K Faculty refurbishment of Laigh Hall</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7ZW1wbHhvXzhrQ1k/"><strong><u>Documents released by the Scottish Government</u></strong></a> and published by DOI revealed the then Dean of Faculty of Advocates - <a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/James%20Wolffe%20QC"><strong><u>James Wolffe QC</u></strong></a> (now Lord Advocate) - refused to give any expectation of success on attempts by Edinburgh Council to recover public ownership of titles to Parliament House and the Laigh Hall. <p align="justify">In one letter dated 2 April 2015 to former Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice&nbsp; Alex Neil MSP – James Wolffe told the Minister he did not object to a meeting between representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council and the Faculty of Advocates. However, Wolffe added to the same letter <strong>“At the same time I would not wish to give any expectation to you or the council as to the outcome of any discussion.”</strong> <p align="justify">In a separate email to a senior Scottish Government civil servant - James Wolffe added: <strong>“I am advised that the of refurbishing the Laigh Hall following the grant of title to the Faculty was £242,270 plus VAT, with professional fees of £33,537 plus VAT.”</strong> <p align="justify">The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service also disclosed their own figures incurred following legal fees in the action against the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the titles of Parliament House, Parliament Hall and the Laigh Hall. The SCTS admitted it had incurred legal costs in respect of advice from solicitors amounted to £4,388.20 and costs of £3,980 in instructing Counsel. <p align="justify"><strong>The full listing of Legal Fees to City of Edinburgh Council: Parliament Hall Titles:</strong> Burness Paull 38,726.40, Charges/Diligence-Other Registers search fees 108.00, Counsel's fees 10,620.00, Courier Charge 30.90, Court Dues 213.50, Court Officer fees 479.28, Experts/Other Professional fees 2,400.00, Registers Form Reports 60.00, Registers - Copy/Extract Dues 236.40, Registers Direct search fees 21.60, Travel Expenses 94.92, <b>Totals </b><b>£52,991.00</b><b></b></p><p align="justify"><strong>LAIGH HALL ‘OCCUPIED’ BY FACULTY OF ADVOCATES WITH NO RECORDED TITLES:</strong></p><p align="justify">In a separate 47 page<strong>&nbsp;</strong><a title="Registers of Scotland - Parliament House Titles release" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dUN4WWhfdEprcnc/view"><strong><u>Freedom of Information document release</u></strong></a> by<strong> </strong><a title="Registers of Scotland" href="https://www.ros.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Registers of Scotland</u></strong></a> (RoS)– the body charged with registering land ownership in Scotland – several documents highlight Scottish Government civil servants scrambling to protect Ministers from questions over the titles loss in the Scottish Parliament while vested legal interests are of a clear persuasion titles should be handed over to the Faculty of Advocates.</p><p align="justify">Additionally, the position of the Faculty of Advocates in relation to their ownership claim over the Laigh Hall becomes a little clearer in a chain of correspondence from the Edinburgh law firm of Shepherd and Wedderburn to RoS, which follows on from a letter from Registers of Scotland to a law firm marked <strong>“Destroy correspondence after archive”.</strong></p><p align="justify">In a letter dated 19 January 2006, a solicitor - David A Smith of for Shepherd &amp; Wedderburn appears to admit the Faculty of Advocates “occupied” a key part of Parliament House known as the Laigh Hall, but held no recorded title to it.</p><p align="justify"><a title="Registers of Scotland - Parliament House Titles FOI Release" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7dUN4WWhfdEprcnc/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&amp;id=115Chvltf-02lqqHkAkna3CVF8fr-IUmD1Q" width="250" align="left" height="375"></a>Mr Smith writes to Registers of Scotland, stating: <strong>The Disposition by The Scottish Ministers is stated to be for no consideration, and as I indicated to you In the course of our telephone conversation, the position with regard to the Laigh Hall is that the Faculty of Advocates has occupied the Laigh Hall for approximately 150 years, and the records of the Faculty indicate that although the Faculty did not have a recorded title to the Laigh Hall, the Senior Officer Bearers of the Faculty in the Nineteenth Century were of the opinion that the Faculty had "undoubted title" to the Laigh Hall.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Parliament House Is in the course of being redeveloped by The Scottish Court Service, and in the course of the redevelopment it became clear to all concerned that The Scottish Ministers did not have a registered title to the whole of Parliament House and it was agreed in the course of discussions between The Scottish Court Service and the Faculty that The Scottish Ministers would register a title to the entire building and they would then grant the Faculty a Disposition of the Laigh Hall in order to regularise the de facto position which has applied since the mid Nineteenth Century.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>In the hope that this explanation will be sufficient for your purposes, I look forward to hearing from you with a receipted Form 4 and confirmation that the Registers of Scotland will now process the Faculty's application for registration of its interest on the back of the application which was recently submitted on behalf of The Scottish Ministers in relation to the whole of Parliament House.</strong></p><p align="justify">The solicitor at Shepherd&nbsp; &amp; Wedderburn acting for the ‘trustee’ for the Faculty of Advocates - David A Smith, was none other than David Alexander Smith - the husband of Court of Session judge Lady Anne Smith. <p align="justify">After his retirement from Shepherd &amp; Wedderburn, David Smith served a term as a board member of the Scottish legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), where he sparked findings by Kevin Dunion - the then Scottish Information Commissioner - who demanded the release of censored comments by Smith targeting victims of corrupt solicitors who came before the pro-lawyer legal regulator. <p align="justify"><strong>PARLIAMENT HOUSE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP TITLE SWINDLE:</strong> <p align="justify">Last year Diary of Injustice<strong> </strong><a href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/wolffe-hall-as-edinburgh-city-council.html"><strong><u>reported on the City of Edinburgh Council’s efforts to recover the titles to Parliament House</u></strong></a> after land reform campaigner Andy Wightman – now an MSP - revealed <a href="http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4172"><strong><u>land titles to the buildings of Scotland’s top courts</u></strong></a> were ‘gifted’ by Scottish Ministers to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify">A disclosure of <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QUxVRVZ3bGtFdkU/view"><strong><u>eighty eight pages of documents</u></strong></a> released to DOI under Freedom of Information legislation - revealed at the time the Scottish Government had no plans to act over their handing over of the Parliament Hall land titles to the Faculty of Advocates. <p align="justify">And, throughout the documents – which contain communications between civil servants, briefings to Ministers, land reports and letters from Edinburgh City Council asking for meetings, it was clear Scottish Ministers favour leaving the titles to the nation’s top courts with the vested interests of the legal profession. <p align="justify">During an earlier check on the titles to the Laigh Hall – Parliament House – Queen Street – ownership stood in the name of “<strong>SIDNEY NEIL BRAILSFORD Queen's Counsel, Treasurer of HONOURABLE THE FACULTY OF ADVOCATES Edinburgh, as Trustee and in Trust for said Faculty”</strong>. Sidney Brailsford is none other than High Court Judge Lord Brailsford. <p align="justify"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QUxVRVZ3bGtFdkU/view"><img style="margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-VTWoX4NFgDQ/VQrN7SUkHtI/AAAAAAAABkE/tYp8eqzpSrs/s400/SG%2520LETTER%2520cover.jpg" width="250" align="left" height="365"></a><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7QUxVRVZ3bGtFdkU/view"><strong><u>Scottish Government files reveal how court titles were handed over to advocates</u></strong></a> After a series of briefings with Ministers – involving everyone from the Lord Advocate &amp; Solicitor General to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Minister for Legal Affairs and others, a position was adopted by Scottish Ministers <strong>“That we confirm to Council officials that it is the Scottish Government's position that title to Parliament Hall was taken by Scottish Ministers in good faith and with the full knowledge and consent of the Council. The Scottish Court Service and Faculty of Advocates therefore have good title to the property and Ministers propose no further action.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Lawyers for the Scottish Government also sought to distance themselves from the huge £58 million taxpayer funded spend on the Scottish Court buildings – long after titles were handed over to the advocates. <p align="justify">One lawyer stated in an email: <strong>“Was the PH </strong>[Parliament Hall]<strong> refurb about £60m? It went over in the SCS </strong>[Scottish Court Service] <strong>budgets I think but from my recollection of briefing on their budget it is not easily identifiable within their budget lines. So SCS </strong>[Scottish Court Service] <strong>spent the money not SG </strong>[Scottish Government]<strong>?”</strong> <p align="justify">In another memo, it is revealed Edinburgh City Council may be compelled to take legal action to recover the titles and details an example of how Common Good land disputes have affected legislation in the past. <p align="justify">As previously reported, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already given her blessing to the multi million pound title handover freebie to the Faculty of Advocates. The First Minister claimed there was “<strong>no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council”</strong>. The First Minister’s response to a question from Green Party MSP Alison Johnstone during First Minister’s Questions, follows: <p align="center"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJg5o4vPWJM"><strong><u>Parliament House handed over to Faculty of Advocates FMQ's Nicola Sturgeon 19 February 2015</u></strong></a> <p align="center"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EJg5o4vPWJM" frameborder="0" width="560" allowfullscreen></iframe><p align="justify">Official Report of debate:<strong> Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green): It transpired this week that the 17th century old Parliament hall in Edinburgh was transferred from the collective ownership of my constituents to Scottish ministers without knowledge or recompense to the common good fund. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>The City of Edinburgh Council failed in its role as steward of the fund, but is now seeking to resolve the situation. Can the First Minister assure my constituents that any requests from the council to restore ownership of that common good asset to the council will be considered seriously and favourably?</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The First Minister - Nicola Sturgeon: I will briefly state the background to this issue, of which I am sure that Alison Johnstone is aware.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>The Scottish Government’s position is that title to Parliament hall was taken by Scottish ministers in good faith, and that that was done with the full knowledge and consent of the council. The Scottish Courts Service and the Faculty of Advocates, therefore, have now got good title to that property.</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>Of course, I am more than happy to ask the relevant minister, Marco Biagi, to; meet and discuss the matter with the City of Edinburgh Council, but as far as I can see there is no fault here on the part of the Scottish Government. </strong><p align="justify"><strong>Further, of course, title has since been passed on, so it may very well be that there is no easy solution to the issue of restoring title to the City of Edinburgh Council. I think that any questions on how the situation has arisen probably have to be directed to the council.</strong></p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/09/wolffe-hall-edinburgh-council-racks-up.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-8638808806689209884Mon, 01 Aug 2016 15:53:00 +00002016-08-01T16:53:18.877+01:00Crown OfficeFrank MulhollandGregory KingHeather CapitalJames Wolffe QCLord AdvocateLord DohertyLord GillPeter WatsonCAPITAL CLAIM: Court of Session ruling on Heather Capital writ paves way for legal confrontation between liquidators & law firm involved in £280m hedge fund collapse<p align="justify"><em><a title="Heather Capital" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Heather%20Capital"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DCrBG-ERnTw/V59oZbmh0pI/AAAAAAAAChg/yA7YfTMvYywQ68N-oegtxUgaKtOmyZp-ACCo/s400/Heather%2BCapital%2Bruling%2Bcover.jpg" width="360" align="left" height="260"></a>Court of Session rules Law firm should face £28m writ proof.</em>&nbsp;<strong>A RULING</strong> by Court of Session judge Lord Doherty has paved the way for a proof hearing of a multi million pound damages claim against Glasgow based law firm <a title="Levy &amp; McRae" href="http://www.lemac.co.uk/"><strong><u>Levy &amp; McRae</u></strong></a> - for their role in connection with a £280m collapsed hedge fund.</p><p align="justify">Current and former partners of law firm Levy &amp; McRae who were named in the writ – including among them suspended judge Peter Black Watson (62) - now face a potential claim of up to £28million from Paul Duffy of Ernst &amp; Young – the liquidators of collapsed hedge fund <a title="Heather Capital" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Heather%20Capital"><strong><u>Heather Capital</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Allegations against numerous individuals were made before Lord Doherty in the Court of Session during a case which ran for several weeks.</p><p align="justify">This week, the <a title="Pippa Middleton's fianc&eacute; was major investor in collapsed Scots company at heart of &pound;90million fraud investigation" href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/pippa-middletons-fianc-major-investor-8529647"><strong><u>Sunday Mail newspaper reported</u></strong></a> that “Pursuers including liquidator Paul Duffy say £19 million was paid from the firm’s client account to Panama-registered Niblick Investments SA – owned and controlled by jailed fraudster Nicholas “Beano” Levene. They claim the money had been sent from Heather Capital’s bank account to Levy &amp; McRae on January 4, 2007, and transferred to Niblick five days later.</p><p align="justify">A second payment of £9.412 million was sent from Heather Capital to the firm’s client account before being transferred on to a firm of Gibraltar-based solicitors.</p><p align="justify">The liquidators’ case alleges King <strong>“created the false impression”</strong> that these companies had themselves entered into loan agreements against property with other Gibraltar firms.</p><p align="justify">The pursuers go on to state: <strong>“In fact, the money was never paid to them. It was instead paid out to third parties, undocumented and without security, out of various solicitors’ client accounts in which it had been deposited.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“Mr King and Santo Volpe (a co-director of Heather Capital) were co-conspirators in the fraudulent diversion of HC’s funds to third parties such as Nicholas Levene or companies owned and controlled by him or by Mr King, in contravention of the strategy and principles set out in Heather Capital’s investment particulars.”</strong></p><p align="justify">Lord Doherty’s opinion ruled liquidators should not be time barred in bringing a case. </p><p align="justify">Finding for the liquidators, Lord Doherty said <strong>“The pursuer’s averments are suitable for inquiry.&nbsp; A preliminary proof on prescription appears to me to be the appropriate way forward.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>SUSPENDED JUDGE NAMED IN £28M HEATHER CAPITAL WRIT:</strong></p><p align="justify">The list of current &amp; former Levy &amp; Mcrae partners named in the multi million pound claim also include the solicitor &amp; suspended sheriff – Peter Black Watson – who was <a title="CAPITAL JUDGE: As top judge suspends sheriff over &pound;28m law firm writ alleging links to &pound;400m Heather Capital collapse, what now for Lord Gill&rsquo;s battle against a register of interests &amp; transparency for Scotland&rsquo;s judiciary" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-judge-as-top-judge-suspends.html"><strong><u>suspended from the judicial bench by Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill</u></strong></a>.</p><p align="justify">Lord Gill suspended Sheriff Peter Black Watson in February 2015 - after demanding sight of <a href="http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/6333509/Writ-hits-the-fan.html"><strong><u>a multi million pound writ against Glasgow law firm Levy &amp; McRae</u></strong></a> – where Watson was formerly a partner. <p align="justify">It was reported Watson offered to step aside temporarily – while the litigation concluded - however a Judicial Office spokesperson set the records straight in a <a href="http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1390/Statement-from-the-Judicial-Office-for-Scotland-on-the-suspension-of-part-time-sheriff-Peter-Watson"><strong><u>statement from the Judicial Office for Scotland</u></strong></a> which read: “<strong>Sheriff Peter Watson was suspended from the office of part-time sheriff on 16 February 2015, in terms of section 34 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“On Friday 13 February the Judicial Office was made aware of the existence of a summons containing certain allegations against a number of individuals including part-time sheriff Peter Watson.” </strong><p align="justify"><strong>“The Lord President’s Private Office immediately contacted Mr Watson and he offered not to sit as a part-time sheriff on a voluntary basis, pending the outcome of those proceedings. “</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“Mr Watson e-mailed a copy of the summons to the Lord President’s Private Office on Saturday 14 February. </strong><strong>On Monday 16 February the Lord President considered the matter.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“Having been shown the summons, the Lord President concluded that in the circumstances a voluntary de-rostering was not appropriate and that suspension was necessary in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. </strong><strong>Mr Watson was therefore duly suspended from office on Monday 16 February 2015.”</strong></p><p align="justify">This week, the Sunday Mail also revealed the <a href="http://www.crownoffice.gov.uk"><strong><u>Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service</u></strong></a> (COPFS) – <a title="WOLFFE LAW: Crown Office &lsquo;line of succession&rsquo; falters - First Minister names James Wolffe QC as Lord Advocate &amp; Alison Di Rollo as Solicitor General" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/06/wolffe-law-crown-office-line-of.html"><strong><u>now led by Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC</u></strong></a> – is yet to act after a three year probe initiated by Wolffe’s predecessor – Frank Mulholland QC following the police probe into Heather Capital and Mathon Finance.</p><p align="justify">Marbella based Gregory King, lawyer Andrew Sobolewski, 57, of Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire, accountant Andrew Millar, 63, of Cambuslang, near Glasgow, and property expert Scott Carmichael, 44, of Thorntonhall, near Glasgow, were named in the police report on Mathon sent to the Crown Office in April 2013.</p><p align="justify">Wolffe’s predecessor – Frank Mulholland – who <a title="PASS THE CROWN : As one Lord Advocate exits, another is set to take charge of Scotland&rsquo;s &lsquo;institutionally corrupt&rsquo; Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/05/pass-crown-as-one-lord-advocate-exits.html"><strong><u>stepped down from post of Lord Advocate without making a decision on the Heather Capital case</u></strong></a> – was recently appointed as a judge at the Court of Session - by current Lord President Lord Carloway (real name – Colin Sutherland).</p><p align="justify">The Crown Office have so far declined to say whether any action would follow against any of the four.</p><p align="justify">Full opinion of Lord Doherty: <a title="OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2016] CSOH 107 CA207/14" href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8eea19a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7"><strong><u>OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2016] CSOH 107 CA207/14</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">OPINION OF LORD DOHERTY In the cause</p><p align="justify">HEATHER CAPITAL LIMITED (in liquidation) and PAUL DUFFY as liquidator thereof (Pursuer) <br>against :<br>(FIRST) LEVY &amp; McRAE; (SECOND) WILLIAM MACREATH; (THIRD) ANDREW SLEIGH; (FOURTH) ANGELA MCCRACKEN; (FIFTH) DAVID MCKIE; (SIXTH) ALASDAIR GILLIES; (SEVENTH) GARY BOOTH; (EIGHTH) PETER WATSON; and (NINTH) ALASTAIR GOODMAN (Defenders)</p><p align="justify">Pursuer:&nbsp; Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC, Tariq;&nbsp; Shepherd &amp; Wedderburn LLP <br>Defenders:&nbsp; Duncan QC, Brown;&nbsp; Clyde &amp; Co <br>22 July 2016</p><p align="justify"><strong>Introduction</strong><br>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The pursuer is a company (“HC”) in liquidation and its liquidator.&nbsp; The liquidator was appointed on 7 July 2010 by order of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man (HC was incorporated in the Isle of Man).&nbsp; The defenders are a firm of Scottish solicitors and the partners or former partners of the firm.&nbsp; In this commercial action the pursuer seeks redress from the defenders on a variety of grounds.&nbsp; The matter came before me for a debate.&nbsp; The principal issue debated was whether the court could determine without further inquiry that each of the obligations upon which the pursuer founds has been extinguished by prescription.&nbsp; The defenders also maintain that certain of the pursuer’s averments are irrelevant.</p><p align="justify">[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The debate took up two and a half of the three days which had been allocated for it.&nbsp; Notes of argument had been prepared in advance.&nbsp; These were supplemented with oral submissions, and there was reference during the course of the debate to productions which had been lodged in a joint bundle.&nbsp; However, there was no joint minute relating to the productions and no agreement renouncing probation in respect of them.</p><p align="justify"><strong>The pleadings</strong><br>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The following is a summary of the pursuer’s averments.&nbsp; Some of them are disputed.&nbsp; Since they include allegations of impropriety against several people it is important to emphasise that they are averments and not established facts.&nbsp; Thus, for example, Mr King has not been the subject of any criminal proceedings.&nbsp; However, for the purposes of the debate the pursuer’s averments require to be taken pro veritate.</p><p align="justify">[4]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; HC and its investors were defrauded by the diversion of invested funds exceeding £90 million (including £28.412 million which HC had entrusted to the defenders) under the guise of fictitious loans to various shelf companies incorporated in Gibraltar.&nbsp; The mechanism of the fraud was essentially the same in each case.&nbsp; A number of companies, owned and/or controlled by a director of HC, Gregory King, were incorporated in Gibraltar.&nbsp; HC then entered into credit facility agreements with those companies (the “first-level special purpose vehicles” (“first-level SPVs”)), each agreement being secured by a debenture granted by the first‑level SPV.&nbsp; Mr King created the false impression that the first‑level SPVs had themselves entered into loan agreements with other special purpose Gibraltar companies (the “second-level SPVs”) and that the loans to the second-level SPVs had been secured against heritable property.&nbsp; On the information available to it, HC recorded loans to the first-level SPVs in its books of account.&nbsp; In fact, the money was never paid to them.&nbsp; It was instead paid out to third parties, undocumented and without security, out of various solicitors’ client accounts in which it had been deposited.&nbsp; Mr King and Santo Volpe (a co-director of HC) were co-conspirators in the fraudulent diversion of HC’s funds to third parties such as Nicholas Levene or companies owned and controlled by him or by Mr King, in contravention of the strategy and principles set out in HC’s investment particulars.</p><p align="justify">[5]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On 4 January 2007 £19 million was transferred from HC’s bank account to the defenders’ client account.&nbsp; On 24 January 2007 a further £9.412 million was transferred from HC’s bank account to the defenders’ client account.&nbsp; The pursuer avers that HC was the defenders’ client; and that esto HC was not their client the defenders nevertheless received and held the payments on its behalf.&nbsp; So far as HC was concerned each of the two payments was to be loaned to a first-level SPV, Westernbrook Properties Limited (“WBP”), once loan and security documentation had been executed; and WBP was to on‑lend it to a second-level SPV once a loan agreement had been executed and security over heritable property obtained.&nbsp; In fact the monies were never paid to WBP.&nbsp; On 9 January 2007 the defenders paid the £19 million to Niblick Investments SA (“Niblick”), a Panamanian company owned and controlled by Mr Levene.&nbsp; On 29 March 2007 the defenders transferred the £9.412 million to a firm of Gibraltar solicitors, Hassans, under the reference Rosecliff Limited (a company controlled by Mr King).&nbsp; In each case at the time of transfer the transfers were “undocumented, without security, and contrary to the strategy and principles set out in HC’s investment procedures”.</p><p align="justify">[6]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Early in 2007 HC’s auditors (KPMG Audit LLC (“KPMG”), the Isle of Man member firm of KPMG International Co-operative) raised questions about the propriety and recoverability of loans by HC to the first‑level SPVs.&nbsp; In a memorandum dated 17 March 2007 KPMG identified concerns relating to the documentation provided in respect of loans by the first-level SPVs to second‑level SPVs.&nbsp; KPMG suggested that further work should be undertaken and that additional information was required.</p><p align="justify">[7]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; After KPMG had flagged up concerns Mr King and Mr Volpe compounded the fraud by taking steps, from March 2007 onwards, to conceal the true use of the funds, and to create the false impression that the fictitious loans had been repaid to HC between April and June 2007 by the first-level SPVs.&nbsp; Between April and June 2007 Mr King instructed additional funds to be transferred from HC to Mathon Limited (“Mathon”) and Bathon Limited (“Bathon”).&nbsp; Fictitious loans were created by Mathon and Bathon to give the appearance that those funds had been advanced to legitimate borrowers.&nbsp; In fact the funds were transferred to Cannons Law LLP (‘Cannons’).&nbsp; Cannons were instructed by Mr King to send payments to HC for amounts equivalent to the purported outstanding loans to (all but two of) the first‑level SPVs.&nbsp; Cannons later stated to HC’s board of directors and KPMG that they had acted on behalf of the first‑level SPVs when making the repayments.&nbsp; This gave the false impression that the loans to the first‑level SPVs had been repaid whereas in fact the “loans” (including the “loans” to WBP) were “repaid” by using HC’s own funds.</p><p align="justify">[8]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The board of directors of HC investigated the concerns raised by KPMG.&nbsp; A board meeting was held on 6 September 2007.&nbsp; Mr King and two non‑executive directors (John Bourbon and Robin James) were present and the company secretary, Andrew Ashworth, and David McGarry of KPMG were in attendance.&nbsp; Mr King advised that Mr Volpe had executed loans to SPV companies where non-standard procedures had been followed, inadequate security had been given for some loans, and relevant accounting records had not been obtainable from Cannons.&nbsp; Mr King stated that the loans to the SPVs had been repaid in full in May 2007.&nbsp; Mr Bourbon sought to meet Mr Volpe to investigate matters but Mr Volpe refused to co-operate.&nbsp; Later the same month Mr Bourbon met with Joseph Triay of Triay &amp; Triay, Solicitors, Gibraltar to try and obtain information about the loans made by HC to the first-level SPVs.&nbsp; Triay &amp; Triay refused to provide access to the books or records of the first‑level SPVs without Mr Volpe’s consent.&nbsp; Following a resolution at a board meeting of HC on 1 October 2007 Mr Bourbon, Andrew Beeman (another non‑executive director), and Mr Ashworth attended a meeting with the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (the “FSC”) to discuss “the issues”.&nbsp; On 8 October 2007, Mr Bourbon emailed Mr Triay asking whether he had contacted Mr Volpe to obtain authority to release the documents which he had requested at the meeting in Gibraltar.&nbsp; On 10 October 2007 Mr Beeman made a disclosure of suspicious activity to the Isle of Man Financial Crime Unit (“FCU”).&nbsp; The subject of the disclosure was Mr Volpe, and it narrated the efforts made by the non-executive directors to seek further information about the SPVs and the obstacles they faced from Mr Volpe and Cannons.&nbsp; The FCU acknowledged the disclosure on 12 October 2007 and indicated that it would carry out its own enquiries.&nbsp; This process did not disclose the fact that HC’s funds had been diverted to Mr Levene, Niblick, Rosecliff Limited or Mr King and that HC had accordingly suffered a loss.&nbsp; On 18 October 2007, the FSC wrote to the directors of HC and asked to be kept informed of the situation.&nbsp; On 26 November 2007, Mr King wrote to HC’s board of directors admitting that “an element of fraud” had been introduced into HC’s investment strategy.&nbsp; Mr King blamed the fraud on Mr Volpe (who had by that time resigned as a director of HC) and Cannons.&nbsp; Mr King falsely represented that the fictitious loans had been repaid.</p><p align="justify">[9]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; KPMG qualified their audit opinion in the reports and financial statements for the 16 month period to 31 December 2006 and the 9 month period to 30 September 2007, both signed by KPMG on 17 December 2007.&nbsp; KPMG recorded the additional steps taken to address their concerns in a file note in connection with the audits for the periods ending 31 December 2006 and 30 September 2007 (the “Completion Note”), which stated:</p><p align="justify">“The above matters had the following impact on the audit: </p><p align="justify"><strong>Fraud Risk</strong></p><p align="justify">The risk of fraud increased to high as a result of the documentation issues surrounding the SPVs, where some form of fraud appeared to have been attempted. </p><p align="justify">This was addressed in our work by increasing audit procedures in the following areas:</p><p align="justify">• Full scope audit to 30 September 2007 to gain greater assurance over receipt of monies in relation to the SPV loans and their subsequent reinvestment </p><p align="justify">• Full audit of Mathon and Bathon accounts to 30 September 2007.&nbsp; (All monies were invested in these companies as at 30 September 2007).&nbsp; This audit was undertaken by their auditors, Gerber Landa &amp; Gee, in accordance with ‘group’ audit instructions from us. As part of this work, they were instructed to perform a 100% circularisation and credit review of all significant loans.</p><p align="justify">… It was also decided by DKM, MJF and ND to undertake an audit of the nine month figures to 30 September 2007, in order to audit the receipt of monies in relation to the SPV loans and their subsequent reinvestment to assist with signing the 31 December 2006 accounts.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Audit report opinion</strong></p><p align="justify">We have been unable to verify where funds advanced to the SPVs were invested. In addition, we were supplied with false documentation in relation to the SPVs, which appears to have been a deliberate attempt to mislead us. We consider therefore that sufficient appropriate audit evidence has not been obtained in relation to the loans advanced to the SPVs in 2006 and 2007. Given these loans were repaid in the period, we consider that the effect of this is not so material and pervasive that we are unable to form an opinion on the financial statements – instead we have issued an ‘except for’ qualified opinion.”</p><p align="justify">The qualification to the 31 December 2006 audit opinion stated:</p><p align="justify">“…[T]he evidence available to us was limited with regard to loans amounting to £38,950,000 advanced to a number of Gibraltar-incorporated special purpose companies (the ‘SPCs’). As further explained in note 5, there is uncertainty regarding the purposes to which these loans were applied. Loan and security documentation was provided to us, which purported to show that these monies had been on-lent to a number of further Gibraltar-incorporated special purpose companies. We could not validate this documentation.”</p><p align="justify">Note 5 to the December 2006 accounts noted the following:</p><p align="justify">“During the accounting period to 31 December 2006 £38,950,000 was advanced to 6 Gibraltar based special purpose companies (“the SPCs”); £41,269,250 was outstanding as at 31 December 2006, including amortised discount. The lending to the SPCs was effected using standard documentation between the Company and the SPC borrower. The SPCs have related party shareholders and directors - see note 10.</p><p align="justify">There is uncertainty as to where the monies lent to the SPCs were then subsequently invested. Loan and security documentation was produced in support of this onward investment by a firm of lawyers. This documentation purported to show that the monies had been on-lent to a number of further Gibraltar incorporated special purpose companies, owned by the underlying borrowers, and secured on property. This documentation could not be validated by the auditors.</p><p align="justify">Amounts equivalent to the outstanding balances on the loans to the SPCs (including accrued interest) were received in full during the period between April and June 2007. With the exception of an amount received from the Promoter (see below), the Directors have been unable to ascertain the source of these repayments which were made via a lawyer's client account. The funds received included an amount of US$5,333,100 from Sargon Capital Limited, the Promoter - see note 10 regarding related party transactions. The Directors are satisfied, having taken legal advice that the funds that have been received have been properly applied in repaying the SPC loan balances and are free of any encumbrance.</p><p align="justify">Investigations continue to determine what party (or parties) were involved in and were accountable for these events and whether any action should be taken against them….”</p><p align="justify">KPMG’s audit report opinion in the 30 September 2007 accounts contained substantially the same qualification.&nbsp; On 6 June 2008, KPMG signed their audit report opinion on HC’s accounts for the period ended 31 December 2007.&nbsp; The audit report opinion repeated the qualifications concerning the SPV loans with reference to the comparative 2006 figures.&nbsp; On 5 September 2008, KPMG signed their interim review report on HC’s interim accounts for the 6 month period ended 30 June 2008.&nbsp; On 12 May 2009, KPMG signed their audit report opinion on HC’s accounts for the 12 month period ended 31 December 2008.&nbsp; Neither of those reports contained an audit qualification.</p><p align="justify">[10]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In 2009 the Serious Fraud Office in England and Wales opened an inquiry into Mr Levene’s business affairs, as a result of which he was charged with, and pled guilty to, fourteen counts of fraud, false accounting and obtaining money by deception.&nbsp; On 5 November 2012 he was sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment.</p><p align="justify">[11]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Following his appointment on 7 July 2010 the liquidator (assisted by staff from the Fraud Investigations and Dispute Service at Ernst &amp; Young LLP) sought to reconstruct HC’s affairs and account for the losses HC and its investors sustained.&nbsp; The process of identifying the destination of the funds commenced in February 2011.&nbsp; It included a detailed review of electronic documentation recovered from various sources.&nbsp; In around June 2012, the liquidator’s team identified documents which indicated that the payments of £19 million and £9.412 million had not been lent on to&nbsp; second level SPVs but had instead been paid to Niblick and Hassans.&nbsp; This was confirmed on 31 August 2012, when the defenders produced copies of their client ledger to the liquidator as part of a response to a request for information made by the liquidator under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986.</p><p align="justify">[12]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The pursuer’s case against the defenders is presented on a number of alternative bases.&nbsp; The primary remedy sought is for an accounting by the defenders to it of the whole of their intromissions from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007 with HC’s funds received by them into their client account, and for payment of any balance found to be due.&nbsp; The pursuer avers that the defenders held those funds in trust for it, and that they paid away £19 million to Niblick and £9.412 million to Hassans in breach of trust (conclusion 1, Cond. 25‑28, and the pursuer’s fourth plea‑in‑law).&nbsp; Failing an accounting by the defenders the pursuer seeks payment of £28.412 million (conclusion 2, Cond. 28, and the pursuer’s fifth plea‑in‑law).&nbsp; Alternatively it seeks payment of £28.412 million by way of restoration of the value of trust property in respect that the payments were wrongly paid away in breach of trust (conclusion 3, Cond. 25‑27 and 29, and the pursuer’s sixth plea‑in‑law).&nbsp; Alternatively the pursuer seeks damages of £28.412 million on grounds of the defenders’ breach of trust et separatim breach of fiduciary duties et separatim breach of contract et separatim fault and negligence et separatim dishonest assistance.</p><p align="justify">[13]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The defenders maintain that all of the obligations upon which the pursuer founds have been extinguished by the short negative prescription.&nbsp; The pursuer maintains that the obligation of accounting for trust funds et separatim the obligation to restore the value of the trust property paid away are not obligations to which the short negative prescription applies:&nbsp; that while they are both prescriptible obligations they are subject only to the 20 year prescription.&nbsp; In relation to the obligations which are subject to the short negative prescription, the pursuer maintains that they have not been extinguished.&nbsp; It avers that it was not aware of having sustained loss until after the appointment of the liquidator, and that it could not with reasonable diligence have been aware that it had suffered a loss until less than five years before the action was raised (Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (“the 1973 Act”), section 11(3)).&nbsp; It also avers that a period when it was in error induced by the conduct of the defenders should not be reckoned as part of the prescriptive period (1973 Act, section 6(4)(a)(ii)).&nbsp; I shall examine these averments more closely later.</p><p align="justify"><strong>The parties’ submissions:&nbsp; Prescription</strong></p><p align="justify">[14]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As one would expect, there was much common ground in relation to the law.&nbsp; It was accepted that the pursuer’s claims for damages for breach of trust, breach of contract, fault and negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, and dishonest assistance were founded upon obligations to which the short negative prescription applied;&nbsp; and that prima facie those obligations had been extinguished by prescription unless the running of the prescriptive period had been postponed by virtue of section 11(3), or a period was not to be reckoned as part of the prescriptive period because of the operation of section 6(4)(a)(ii).</p><p align="justify">[15]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Parties were at odds whether the obligations underlying the pursuer’s claims (i) for an accounting for trust funds and (ii) for restoration of the value of trust property paid away were obligations to which section 6 applied.</p><p align="justify">[16]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In relation to these two obligations Mr Duncan submitted that the defenders’ plea of prescription should be sustained and the action should be dismissed.&nbsp; Cases such as Barns v Barns’ Trs (1857) 19 D. 626 demonstrated that prior to the 1973 Act obligations of a trustee to account for trust funds and to answer for transactions carried out as a trustee prescribed under the old long negative prescription.&nbsp; In the present case the defenders had produced accounts ‑ the client account ledger showing the payments in and out.&nbsp; While as a matter of averment the pursuer sought an accounting for trust funds in reality the claim was truly one for reparation for breach of trust.&nbsp; Obligations to make reparation for breach of trust were obligations which were subject to the short negative prescription:&nbsp; 1973 Act, Schedule 1, paragraph l(d), and Clark's Judicial Factor v.&nbsp; Clark's Executors [2015] CSOH 53 per Lord Burns at paragraph 132.&nbsp; So far as the claim for restoration of the value of trust property was concerned Mr Duncan submitted, without developing the submission, that Hobday v Kirkpatrick’s Trustees 1985 SLT 197 was a doubtful decision which should not be followed.&nbsp; In any case, Hobday was distinguishable on two grounds.&nbsp; Any trust here would have been a trust which was incidental to a commercial transaction the terms of which were governed by contract, as distinct from a traditional trust.&nbsp; Further, if the obligation here was not one to make reparation it was one to which paragraph 1(g) of Schedule 1 applied.&nbsp; Moreover, even if section 6 did not apply to an obligation to restore the value of trust property the reality here was that the claim was really one for reparation for breach of trust.&nbsp; The transactions in question had long ago been completed, any trust which may have existed was no longer in existence, and there was now no entitlement to have the trust fund reconstituted.&nbsp; In such circumstances there was no right to restoration of the value of trust property, only a right to damages for breach of trust.&nbsp; The observations of Lord Reed in AlB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler &amp; Co Solicitors [2015] AC 1503 at paragraphs [91] et seq. were relied upon by way of analogy in support of that proposition.</p><p align="justify">[17]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lord Davidson submitted that on a proper construction of sections 6 and 7 and Schedules 1, 2 and 3 neither of these obligations were obligations governed by section 6.&nbsp; They were both obligations to which the long‑stop 20 year prescriptive period (section 7) applied.&nbsp; In relation to a trustee’s liability to account for trust funds reference was made to Cockburn v Clark 1885 12 R 707, Moir v Robertson 1924 SLT 435, Collins v EIS Financial Services Ltd 1995 S.C.L.R. 628;&nbsp; and Barns v Barns’ Trs, supra.&nbsp; Obligations of accounting for trust funds were specifically excluded from the obligations of accounting to which section 6 applied (Schedule 1, paragraph 1(f)).&nbsp; The obligation of a trustee to produce accounts was an imprescriptible obligation (Schedule 3, paragraph (e)(i));&nbsp; and the obligation of accounting for trust funds and a trustee’s obligation to restore to the trust the value of trust property wrongly paid away were obligations which were subject only to the long negative prescription (Johnston, Prescription and Limitation (2nd ed), paragraphs 3.23 to 3.29, and 6.31).&nbsp; The trust purposes here had been to pay the money to WBP (cf. The Mortgage Corporation v Mitchells Roberton 1997 SLT 1305).&nbsp; The money had been paid away to others in breach of trust.&nbsp; The obligation of a trustee to restore to the trust the value of property wrongly paid away was not an obligation to make reparation to which s. 6 applied: Hobday v Kirkpatrick’s Trustees, supra;&nbsp; Johnston, supra, paragraph 6.26.</p><p align="justify">[18]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Turning to section 11(3), it was common ground that the onus lay upon the pursuer to obtain the benefit of the subsection.&nbsp; The parties differed as to the date when the pursuer actually became aware that it had suffered loss.&nbsp; The pursuer avers that it did not become so aware until August 2012.&nbsp; Mr Duncan submitted that averment could not be taken at face value in light of other averments which the pursuer made.&nbsp; Standing what it had been told by KPMG and by Mr King the pursuer was aware by January 2008 that it had suffered loss.&nbsp; The fact that it was told and understood that the loss had been repaid and made good was neither here nor there.&nbsp; It knew that, until the supposed repayment, losses had been incurred.&nbsp; It was irrelevant that the losses might have been reversed thereafter:&nbsp; Jackson v Clydesdale Bank plc 2003 SLT 854.&nbsp; In response Lord Davidson submitted that while the pursuer’s averments demonstrated knowledge by January 2008 that there had been an element of fraud down‑stream affecting purported loans between first‑level SPVs (including WBP) and second‑level SPVs, there had been no knowledge that the loans by HC to first‑level SPVs such as WBP were affected.&nbsp; It had not been apparent then that HC had sustained any loss.</p><p align="justify">[19]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In relation to constructive awareness the pursuer avers that it could not with reasonable diligence have become aware that loss, injury or damage had occurred until February 2011 at the earliest.&nbsp; Mr Duncan maintained that, once again, it was difficult to reconcile the pursuer’s averment about the earliest date for constructive knowledge with its averments about the earlier knowledge which the non-executive directors had obtained from KPMG and Mr King.&nbsp; In some respects the pursuer’s pleadings were uncandid.&nbsp; In particular, the pursuer did not admit the terms of the letter of 4 January 2008 from KPMG or provide any explanation of the steps, if any, taken in response to its contents.&nbsp; That letter had made it very clear how serious the need for further investigation was, and that the further investigation required to be put in train by the pursuer.&nbsp; The pursuer’s averments of reasonable diligence by it were vague.&nbsp; For the period after 4 January 2008 there was no adequate explanation of precisely what was done and when it was done.&nbsp; This was not the type of case where the sort of bald averments which the pursuer made could ever be sufficient (Beverage &amp; Kellas WS v Abercromby 1997 SC 88; Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paul LLP [2015] CSOH 150;&nbsp; Paragon Finance plc v DB Thackerer [1999] 1 All ER 400).&nbsp; In response Lord Davidson submitted that in Cond. 5 and Cond. 19 the pursuer had set out a relevant case for inquiry that February 2001 was the earliest date for constructive awareness.&nbsp; In Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paul LLP, supra, Lord Tyre had gone too far too fast in dismissing the pursuer’s case.&nbsp; It could not be said at this stage that the pursuer had not done what an ordinary person would have done in all the circumstances: Glasper v Rodger 1996 SLT 44;&nbsp; Adams v Thorntons WS 2005 1 SC 30.&nbsp; While on record the pursuer’s response to the defenders’ averments concerning the despatch and terms of the KPMG letter of 4 January 2008 were met with a general denial, Lord Davidson accepted that the letter had indeed been received by the pursuer shortly after it was sent.&nbsp; The lack of any appropriate response to the defenders’ averments about the letter had been an oversight.&nbsp; He suggested that was regrettable but not of major importance, because all of the matters raised in the letter had in fact been addressed by the pursuer elsewhere in its pleadings.&nbsp; The information which the pursuer had from KPMG had not pointed to the need for the pursuer to carry out further inquiries of its own.</p><p align="justify">[20]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The pursuer’s averments invoking reliance upon section 6(4) are contained in Cond. 39.&nbsp; Mr Duncan submitted that they were irrelevant.&nbsp; First, there was no relevant averment of error.&nbsp; The pursuer appeared to rely upon the existence of a duty on the part of the defenders to advise the pursuer about a possible claim against them, but there was no such duty (Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson LLP, supra, per Lord Tyre at paragraphs 33-35).&nbsp; Nor were there relevant averments that the error was induced by “conduct” of the defenders.&nbsp; That word should be given its ordinary meaning, which was positive actings.&nbsp; A pure omission was not “conduct” within the meaning of that term in section 6(4)(a)(ii):&nbsp; Johnston at paragraph 6.126, Trustees of Rex Proctor &amp; Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme [2015] CSOH 83, at paragraph 207, and Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson LLP, supra, per Lord Tyre at paragraph 34.&nbsp; No assistance was to be gained from looking at particular statutory definitions of conduct applying to very different contexts from the present one.&nbsp; The onus in relation to the proviso lay on the pursuer, just as it did in relation to all the other requirements of section 6(4).&nbsp; Section 6(4) was an exception to the general rule set out in section 6(1) and it was for the pursuer to bring itself within the exception.&nbsp; Properly read, Lord Penrose’s observations at paragraphs 33 and 66 of Adams v Thorntons WS were authority to that effect.&nbsp; Those observations formed part of the ratio of the decision and were binding on the Outer House whether or not the court took the view that they conflicted with the observations of Lord Millett at paragraph 110 of BP Exploration Operating Co ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland) 2002 SC (HL) 19.&nbsp; In any case, the issue of onus was immaterial in the present case.&nbsp; The pursuer’s averments as to reasonable diligence were irrelevant to instruct a case under section 11(3) for postponing the running of the prescriptive period, and the same averments were equally irrelevant to instruct a case that the proviso was satisfied.</p><p align="justify">[21]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Lord Davidson submitted that the pursuer’s averments were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 6(4)(a)(ii).&nbsp; An error had been identified.&nbsp; If I understood him correctly, there was error as to whom the funds in the defenders’ client account were remitted by them and error as to whether the pursuer had a possible right of action against the defenders.&nbsp; The ordinary meaning of the word “conduct” was sufficiently wide to include an omission to act where, as here, the debtor owed the creditor a duty to act.&nbsp; Construing “conduct” as being limited to positive acts was an unduly restrictive interpretation.&nbsp; The tentative views to the contrary expressed in Johnston at paragraph 6.126, in Trustees of Rex Proctor &amp; Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme, supra, at paragraph 207 (by me), and by Lord Tyre in Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson LLP, supra, at paragraph 34 should not be followed.&nbsp; It was worth noting that in other statutory contexts “conduct” had not been restricted to positive acts (see e.g. Companies Act 2006, section 239(5);&nbsp; Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, section 68(4);&nbsp; Counter‑Terrorism and Security Act 2015, section 14);&nbsp; and that in R v Rai (Thomas) [2001] 1 Cr. App. R 242 the expression “words or conduct” had been held to include circumstances where a person failed to inform a building authority that building works no longer needed to be carried out.&nbsp; A broad view was to be taken when considering what the subsection required (BP Exploration Co Ltd v Chevron, supra, per Lord Hope at paragraph 31, Lord Clyde at paragraphs 66-67, Lord Millet at paragraph 97).&nbsp; The subsection was not to be construed restrictively (Dryburgh v Scotts Media Tax Ltd 2014 SC 651, per the Opinion of the Court delivered by Lord Drummond Young at paragraph 20).&nbsp; The onus of satisfying the requirements of section 6(4)(a)(ii) rested upon the pursuer; but that was not so in relation to the proviso to section 6(4).&nbsp; It was for the defenders to invoke the proviso and it was for them to demonstrate that time should not be included in the period of error (BP Exploration Operating Co ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland), supra, per Lord Millet at paragraph 110;&nbsp; United Central Bakeries v Spooner Industries Limited [2013] CSOH 150, per Lord Hodge at paragraph 117;&nbsp; Johnston, supra, at paragraphs 6.109 and 6.107).&nbsp; Read in context, Lord Penrose’s observations at paragraphs 33 and 66 of Adams v Thorntons WS, supra, ought not to be read as saying anything different.&nbsp; If Lord Penrose was to be read as stating that the onus in relation to the proviso lay on the creditor that was contrary to BP Exploration Operating Co ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland), supra.&nbsp; If that was indeed what Lord Penrose said it did not form part of the ratio of the decision, and it should not be followed.&nbsp; In any event, if, contrary to the pursuer’s submission, the onus in relation to the proviso was on the pursuer, the averments of reasonable diligence made by it anent section 11(3) were also sufficient to make out a case under the proviso which was suitable for inquiry.</p><p align="justify">[22]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Finally, Mr Duncan submitted that the court should look at the averments which the pursuer had made in Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson LLP, supra.&nbsp; In that case it had averred that Burness had had actual knowledge of instructions given to them to transmit funds to Mr Levene but did not report it to the pursuer.&nbsp; Mr Duncan submitted that the knowledge that Burness had should be imputed to the pursuer in the present action because Burness had been HC’s agent (Chapelcroft Limited v Invergordon Egg Producers Limited 1973 SLT (Notes) 37;&nbsp; Adams v Thorntons WS, supra;&nbsp; Blackburn Low &amp; Co. v Vigors (1887) 12 App Cas 531;&nbsp; Muir's Executors v Craig's Trustees 1913 SC 349;&nbsp; Johnston, supra, at paragraph 6.89).&nbsp; If that was correct it would fix the pursuer with knowledge alerting it to the alleged fraud more than five years before the present action was raised, and there could be no question of either section 6(4) or section 11(3) saving the claim from prescription.&nbsp; In reply Lord Davidson resisted the contention that Burness’ knowledge fell to be imputed to the pursuer in the present case.&nbsp; Burness had been used by Mr King in the perpetration by him of the fraud.&nbsp; It would be ludicrous and unconscionable in those circumstances to impute Burness’ knowledge to the pursuer for the purposes of the present action. </p><p align="justify"><strong>Decision:&nbsp; Prescription</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>Introduction</strong></p><p align="justify">[23]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If the defenders’ plea of prescription is to be sustained without inquiry into the facts the court needs to be satisfied that even if the pursuer establishes all the facts which it avers the obligations it founds upon have prescribed. </p><p align="justify"><strong>Pre-1973 Act law</strong></p><p align="justify">[24]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel made reference to the pre‑1973 Act law concerning the prescription of obligations of trustees.&nbsp; I did not understand it to be disputed that prior to the 1973 Act obligations of trustees to account for trust property, or to restore the value of trust property disposed of in breach of trust, prescribed under the long negative prescription (see eg Barns v Barns’ Trs, supra, and the cases there discussed;&nbsp; and the Scottish Law Commission Report no 15, Reform of the Law Relating to Prescription and Limitation of Actions, Part III, paragraphs 23-27, for a brief general summary of the previous law).&nbsp; The issues of prescription which arise before me are governed by the 1973 Act.&nbsp; While the excursus to the former law was not without interest, ultimately it has not assisted me in reaching the conclusions which I have reached.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Accounting for trust funds</strong></p><p align="justify">[25]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The law relating to accounting for trust funds appears to me to be clear.&nbsp; The short negative prescription applies to ordinary obligations of accounting, but it does not apply to obligations of accounting for trust funds (1973 Act, Schedule 1, paragraph 1(f)).&nbsp; The obligation of a trustee to produce trust accounts is an imprescriptible obligation (Schedule 3, paragraph (e)(i)).&nbsp; The liability is enforceable by means of an action of count, reckoning and payment (Johnston, supra, paragraph 3.28).&nbsp; On the other hand, the liability to make payment of the sum due in an accounting for trust funds is neither imprescriptible nor is it subject to the short negative prescription.&nbsp; It is governed only by the long negative prescription (1973 Act, section 7(2);&nbsp; Johnston, supra, paragraphs 3.23 to 3.29, 6.31; Russell, Prescription and Limitation of Actions (7th ed), pages&nbsp; 73-74, 115).</p><p align="justify">[26]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On its averments the pursuer’s primary case is for an accounting for trust funds.&nbsp; The defenders dispute that they held the relevant funds as trustee, but that is a matter which cannot be resolved on the pleadings.&nbsp; Given that they deny the existence of a trust and of a liability to account for trust funds, it is difficult to see that they can maintain that they have produced trust accounts: and that is certainly not the position on the pursuer’s averments.&nbsp; The obligation founded upon in the primary case does not bear to be an obligation to make reparation for breach of trust (Schedule 1, paragraph 1(d)) or an obligation arising from, or by reason of any breach of, a contract or promise (Schedule 1, paragraph 1(g)):&nbsp; and I am not persuaded that at a debate ‑ where the pursuer’s averments require to be taken pro veritate - the court can or should re-characterise the obligation upon which the pursuer founds and treat it instead as if it were an obligation of a different nature.</p><p align="justify">[27]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my opinion the pursuer’s averments as to the existence of a trust and of an obligation to account for trust funds are sufficient to entitle it to inquiry.&nbsp; It cannot be said that the pursuer is bound to fail (or that the defenders’ prescription plea is bound to succeed) even if the pursuer establishes all it avers.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Breach of trust</strong></p><p align="justify">[28]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; As an alternative to an accounting for trust funds the pursuer seeks restoration of the value of trust property paid away in breach of trust.&nbsp; The third conclusion and the sixth plea‑in‑law somewhat confusingly refer to “recompense”, but it is clear from the pursuer’s averments in Cond. 29 and 39 that restoration to the trust is what is sought.</p><p align="justify">[29]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my opinion a trustee’s obligation to restore the value of trust property to the trust is not an obligation to which the short negative prescription applies.&nbsp; I am not persuaded that Hobday v Kirkpatrick’s Trustees, supra, was wrongly decided.&nbsp; I agree with Lord Cowie (1985 SLT 197, at page 199) that an obligation of that nature is not an obligation arising from liability to make reparation within the meaning of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 1 (see also Johnston, supra, paragraph 6.26).&nbsp; Rather, it is an obligation to which only the long negative prescription applies (section 7(2)).</p><p align="justify">[30]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I am not persuaded that it is possible to distinguish the present case from Hobday without any inquiry into the facts.&nbsp; Mr Duncan’s first suggested ground of difference was that here the court could and should treat the obligation to restore the value of trust property to the trust as if it were a mere contractual obligation or an obligation arising by reason of breach of contract.&nbsp; However, that is not the nature of the obligation upon which, on averment, the pursuer founds; and without establishing the facts I see no proper basis for proceeding as if it was.&nbsp; Even if Lord Reed’s observations in AlB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler &amp; Co Solicitors, supra, had tended to support Mr Duncan’s suggested approach I would have been very hesitant indeed to treat observations on the English law of equitable compensation as being transferable to the Scots law of trusts: but in my opinion the observations do not assist Mr Duncan.&nbsp; On the contrary, Lord Reed was at pains to distinguish claims for damages from claims for equitable compensation (see e.g. paragraphs 134, 137).&nbsp; The second suggested ground of difference was that if the obligation here was not an obligation to make reparation it was an obligation arising from, or by reason of a breach of, a contract or promise and that it fell within Schedule 1, paragraph 1(g).&nbsp; But prima facie the obligation to restore the value of trust property to the trust upon which the pursuer founds is an obligation of a different character from the obligations described in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(g) (cf. AlB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler &amp; Co Solicitors, per Lord Reed at paragraph 137).</p><p align="justify">[31]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Once again, in my opinion the pursuer’s averments of trust and of an obligation to restore the value of trust property are suitable for inquiry.&nbsp; It cannot be said that the pursuer is bound to fail (or that the defenders’ prescription plea is bound to succeed) even if the pursuer establishes all it avers. </p><p align="justify"><strong>Cases to which the short negative prescription does apply</strong></p><p align="justify">[32]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the debate the pursuer proceeded on the basis that each of the remaining alternative cases advanced by it (viz claims for damages for breach of trust, breach of contract, fault and negligence, breach of fiduciary duties, and dishonest assistance) was subject to the short negative prescription.&nbsp; I understood the pursuer to accept that these claims for damages will have been extinguished unless (in terms of section 6(4)) a period of time is not to be reckoned as part of the prescriptive period, or the commencement of the prescriptive period was postponed (by virtue of section 11(3)).</p><p align="justify"><strong>Section 11(3)</strong></p><p align="justify">[33]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I am not persuaded that I can determine on the pleadings that the pursuer had actual awareness that it had suffered loss more than five years before the action was raised.&nbsp; It avers it was not aware that it had suffered loss until a date later than five years before the action was raised.&nbsp; I require to take that averment pro veritate unless other averments made by the pursuer are plainly inconsistent with it and clearly show actual awareness at an earlier date.&nbsp; I am not satisfied that there are any such averments.&nbsp; As a result of the events of 2007 the pursuer became aware (i) that substantial sums lent by it to first‑level SPVs, including the £19 million and the £9.412 million, had not been on‑lent by first level SPVs to second‑level SPVs;&nbsp; (ii) that instead it had been transferred to other unknown recipients for unknown purposes;&nbsp; (iii) that there had been no valid security granted to first‑level SPVs in relation to the transfers to such recipients;&nbsp; (iv) that the loan and security documentation relating to the purported transactions with second‑level SPVs was invalid;&nbsp; (v) fraud had been involved;&nbsp; (vi) Mr King had alleged to the non-executive directors of the pursuer that Mr Volpe and Cannons had been responsible for the fraud;&nbsp; (vii) that the pursuer had received via Cannons sums tendered as repayment of each of the loans to SPVs including the two purported loans to WBP.&nbsp; In my opinion none of those matters are clearly indicative of awareness that loss had been sustained.&nbsp; The pursuer’s position is that until 2012 it believed that each loan made by it had been duly advanced to the intended first‑level SPV and that the debenture granted by the first‑level SPV when the credit facility agreement with it was concluded would secure the loan; that each of its loans to SPVs had been repaid in about May 2007;&nbsp; and that the irregularities which had been discovered had all been “downstream” in relation to on‑lending by the first‑level SPVs.</p><p align="justify">[34]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand I am persuaded that the pursuer’s averments do not adequately explain why it could not with reasonable diligence have discovered that it had suffered loss more than five years before the action was raised.</p><p align="justify">[35]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The letter of 4 January 2008 from KPMG made it very clear how serious the need for further investigation was, and that that further investigation required to be put in train by the pursuer.&nbsp; I do not accept Lord Davidson’s contention that all of the matters raised in that letter had in fact been addressed by the pursuer elsewhere in its pleadings.&nbsp; Nowhere does the pursuer acknowledge (i) that it was advised by KPMG that it was its obligation to take the actions needed to remedy the weaknesses which had been identified;&nbsp; (ii) that it was advised that KPMG’s routine audit work was designed to enable it to form an audit opinion on the accounts of the companies and that that work should not be relied upon to disclose all irregularities that may exist;&nbsp; (iii) that as at 4 January 2008 KPMG recommended that the Board of HC continue their investigation into the fraudulent loan and security documentation and formally document their decision as to whether or not to inform the criminal justice authorities;&nbsp; (iv) that KPMG recommended that the Board of HC continue their investigation into the misapplication of funds for an unknown purpose and minute their actions and conclusions.&nbsp; The report makes it crystal clear that further investigations were required and were recommended in relation to those matters.</p><p align="justify">[36]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is plain from the averments in Cond. 5 that the audit opinions in the accounts for the 16 month period ending on 31 December 2006 and the 9 month period ending on 30 September 2007 contained very serious qualifications by KPMG; and that the audit opinion in the accounts for the year ending on 31 December 2007 (signed by KPMG on 6 June 2008) repeated the qualifications concerning the SPV loans with reference to the comparative 2006 figures.&nbsp; The pursuer goes on to aver that on 5 September 2008 KPMG signed their interim review report on HC’s interim accounts for the six‑month period ending 30 June 2008 and that their “review opinion was unqualified”;&nbsp; and that on 12 May 2009 KPMG signed their audit report for the 12 month period ending on 31 December 2008 and that the audit report was again unqualified.&nbsp; The pursuer does not aver whether either of those reports referred back to 2006 or 2007 figures (and neither report was produced).&nbsp; Apart from these averments the only other material averments were as follows (the emphasis is mine):</p><p align="justify">“Cond. 5 … Thereafter all avenues of enquiry were considered to have been pursued by HC’s board of directors, including discussing matters with the FSC and making a disclosure to the FCU; meeting with KPMG to discuss how the issue could be further investigated; obtaining legal advice; and seeking to obtain further information from inter alia Gregory King, Santo Volpe and Triay &amp; Triay. These enquiries amounted to reasonable diligence in the circumstances of this case. HC’s board of directors, Abacus and KPMG believed that whilst there had been irregularities with the securities granted by the Second Level SPVs and as explained in the letter from Gregory King to the board of directors of HC dated 26 November 2007 that “some form of fraud had been deliberately introduced with invalid land registry details”, the funds advanced had been repaid in full, with interest, and HC had not suffered a loss. HC’s board of directors’ understanding was supported by KPMG’s investigations. KPMG verified HC’s accounts as reflecting a true and fair view of the HC’s financial conditions. This remained KPMG’s position in subsequent reports. In these circumstances, the board of directors of HC were not, and could not with reasonable diligence, have been aware that HC had suffered a loss until after the appointment of the Liquidator. The true destination of these funds was confirmed on 31 August 2012. From the date of his appointment the Liquidator (assisted by staff from the Fraud Investigations and Dispute Service at Ernst &amp; Young LLP) sought to reconstruct HC’s affairs and so account for the losses HC and its investors sustained. This process of identifying the destination of the funds commenced in February 2011. This included a detailed review of electronic documentation recovered from various sources. In around June 2012, the Liquidator’s team identified documents which indicated that the payments to WBP had not been on lent to the Second Level SPVs but had instead been paid to Niblick and Hassans. This was only confirmed on 31 August 2012, when the First Defender produced copies of its client ledger to the Liquidator as part of a response to a request for information made by the Liquidator under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The ledger produced showed that the funds paid to the defenders by HC had been paid to Niblick and to Hassans. </p><p align="justify">Cond. 39. … Separatim, and in any event, neither the relevant board of directors of HC nor the Liquidator upon his appointment were aware, nor could they with reasonable diligence have been aware or discovered, at any point prior to the Liquidator’s appointment, that HC suffered loss, injury or damage as condescended above. Neither the relevant board of directors of HC nor the Liquidator could have, with reasonable diligence, have discovered prior to the Liquidator’s appointment that a loss of the sum of £28.412 million had been suffered by HC as previously condescended upon. Reference is made to the averments in Article 5 of Condescendence, dealing with the inquiries raised by KPMG in 2007 and the way in which those were dealt. KPMG verified HC’s accounts as reflecting a true and fair view of the HC’s financial conditions. This remained KPMG’s position in subsequent audit reports. Accordingly, the auditors had informed the relevant board of directors of HC that no loss had occurred and confirmed that position in subsequent years. Further as the witness statement dated 26 February 2010 (which is produced) by Mr Ashworth, then one of HC directors, shows, HC made an application to the High Court of Justice in the Isle of Man for the appointment of a liquidator due to cash flow (rather than asset insufficiency) reasons. This was in order that the liquidator appointed by the court could start as soon as possible with the process of realising the loans (and the real property collateral for those loans) transferred to HC by Mathon. At that point, the loans in question were HC’s main asset. Mathon, who had previously managed the loan portfolio, had been put into administration on 17 February 2010, and was therefore no longer available to perform the same service for HC. It was only following Liquidator’s investigations into the affairs of HC that the current loss, injury and damages was discovered. Accordingly, on that alternative basis, the prescriptive period had not started until some time after the Liquidator’s appointment, and at the earliest in or about February 2011. The pursuer was not aware, and it could not have with reasonable diligence been aware, that it had suffered loss of funds transferred to a third party in an undocumented and unsecured way, contrary to the HC’s investment approach and in breach of HC’s instructions. A person of ordinary prudence, exercising reasonable diligence, could not have become aware of the loss prior to February 2011. Further and in any event, in all the circumstances of the case, the pursuer had no reason either in 2007, when the transfers in question were made or at any point after that and prior to the Liquidator’s investigations to suspect the existence of a loss as previously condescended upon had occurred. Reference is made to section 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.” </p><p align="justify">[37]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There are a number of problems with the pursuer’s approach. First, the averments in Cond. 5 that KPMG “verified HC’s accounts as reflecting a true and fair view of the HC’s financial conditions.”, and that “… KPMG believed that … the funds advanced had been repaid in full, with interest, and HC had not suffered a loss.”, and the averment in Cond. 39 that “Accordingly, the auditors had informed the relevant board of directors of HC that no loss had occurred and confirmed that position in subsequent years.” at best place a very favourable gloss on the facts given the qualifications in the accounts to 31 December 2006 and 30 September 2007 (which qualifications were referred to in the accounts for the year to 31 December 2007 signed on 6 June 2008) and the very serious concerns expressed in the letter of 4 January 2008.&nbsp; Second, the question is whether the pursuer could not with reasonable diligence have become aware that it had suffered any material loss (not necessarily the full extent of the loss actually suffered).&nbsp; Third, and critically, the pursuer’s averments setting out what it did in the exercise of reasonable diligence appear to me to be vague and unspecific.&nbsp; The averments do not explain precisely what the pursuer did and when it did it. In my opinion in the circumstances of the present case that simply will not do.&nbsp; In light of the issues raised in the defenders’ averments it was incumbent upon the pursuer to specify in detail each of the steps which it took after receipt of the letter of 4 January 2008.&nbsp; It ought to have explained what, if anything, it did to comply with the recommendations in that letter; and if it did not comply with the recommendations it ought to have explained why it did not.&nbsp; The pursuer has conspicuously failed to do any of those things.&nbsp; All that it proffers are vague general averments which provide no real detail as to what was done and when it was done.&nbsp; In my opinion the pursuer has not discharged the onus upon it of making relevant and specific averments setting out a basis for establishing that it could not with reasonable diligence have been aware that it had suffered loss more than five years before the raising of the action.&nbsp; It has not made relevant and specific averments which if established would show that it took the steps that a person of ordinary prudence would have taken if he found himself in the circumstances which the pursuer did.</p><p align="justify">[38]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Accordingly, since in order to obtain the benefit of section 11(3) the pursuer requires to demonstrate both that it was not aware and that it could not with reasonable diligence have been aware that relevant loss, injury and damage had occurred, its averments that the running of the prescriptive period was postponed in terms of section 11(3) are irrelevant. </p><p align="justify"><strong>Section 6(4):</strong></p><p align="justify">[39]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is well established that it is for the creditor in an obligation to invoke section 6(4).&nbsp; Where the creditor relies on an error it is for him to specify what the error was, when the error commenced, and when it ceased.&nbsp; The pursuer’s averments invoking section 6(4) are contained in Cond. 39:</p><p align="justify">“…The Liquidator was appointed on 7 July 2010. The defenders never advised either the relevant HC or the Liquidator about a possible claim against them (before or after that date), an obligation that was incumbent upon them as an aspect of the overall duties they owed to HC. Accordingly, any period prior to the raising of this action should not be reckoned as part of the prescriptive period in this case, due to the error induced by the conduct of the defender, which induced the pursuer to refrain from making a claim. The error was induced, in particular, by the following: (i) sending the HC funds, which constituted the first payment (as described above) to a third party, undocumented and unsecured, (ii) sending funds which constituted the second payment (as described above) to a law firm in Gibraltar, under the personal reference of Gregory King and for the purposes still unknown, (iii) not advising the relevant board of directors of HC, Abacus, or the Liquidator at any point of the true sequence of events which led to the loss of the HC funds deposited in the defenders’ client account. Reference is made to section 6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.” <br>&nbsp;<br>[40]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The averments do not specify with the clarity one would expect the error upon which the pursuer founds.&nbsp; The formulation used is not commendable.&nbsp; More precise pleading could have avoided the complaint of obscurity.&nbsp; However, on a benign reading I think it is tolerably clear that error having two strands is identified ‑ error as to whom the funds in the defenders’ account were remitted by them and error as to whether the pursuer had a possible right of action against the defenders.</p><p align="justify">[41]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While no date of commencement of the error is specified, it may reasonably be inferred that the pursuer’s case is that the error arose shortly after each of the £19m and £9.412m payments were remitted by the defenders to the recipients.&nbsp; The pursuer does aver an end date for the error (the date of raising of the action (23 October 2014)), but that is obviously not correct as it also avers (Cond. 5) that the true recipients of the payments were confirmed on 31 August 2012.&nbsp; However, in my opinion that relatively immaterial inconsistency is not a good ground for not proceeding to inquiry.</p><p align="justify">[42]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Are the failures to advise as to whom the payments were remitted and as to the existence of a possible right of action “conduct” within the meaning of section 6(4)(a)(ii)?&nbsp; That depends on whether a failure to act may be “conduct”.</p><p align="justify">[43]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree with Lord Davidson that the view expressed in Johnston at paragraph 6.126 is tentative:</p><p align="justify">“One case in which section 11(3) may be the only way forward is where what has induced the pursuer to refrain from making a relevant claim is a negligent omission by the defender.254 Since the only error which is covered by section 6(4) is error induced by ‘words or conduct’, it is not clear that the running of prescription would be suspended by an omission rather than a positive act;&nbsp; certainly, this would not be an ordinary construction of the word ‘conduct’.255 </p><p align="justify">For this reason, and owing to the relief available under section 11(3), it may be better to assume that omissions inducing error may not suspend the running of prescription but that they will be capable of supporting an argument for postponing its starting date. </p><p align="justify">254 For example, where the negligent failure of solicitors to notify the appointed executor of the existence or contents of the will prevented him from raising any proceedings until he was belatedly informed of those facts: Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 C.L.R. 539 at 590, per Deane J. </p><p align="justify">255 Although what was at issue in ANM Group Ltd, 2008 S.L.T. 835 appears to have amounted to omissions, there is no discussion of the point there.” </p><p align="justify">As noted in Johnston, in ANM Group Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd Lord Emslie (paragraphs 75 ‑ 77) appears to have proceeded on the basis that omissions could be conduct.&nbsp; It is also interesting to note that the Lord Ordinary (Lord Macfadyen) in Adams v Thorntons WS, unreported, 19 August 2003, observed at paragraph 67:</p><p align="justify">“…It does not seem to me that to fail to convey to another person information which one does not in fact possess can be said to constitute words or conduct within the meaning of section 6(4). The position might well be different if a person did not pass on information which he had, i.e. if there was active concealment. If, for example, a solicitor withheld from his client information of which he (the solicitor) was aware and which would have alerted the client to the possibility of a claim against the solicitor, that might well be held to constitute conduct within the meaning of section 6(4)(a)(ii). Since the point does not arise in the present case, however, I prefer to reserve my opinion on it …” </p><p align="justify">The Inner House (2005 1 SC 30) was critical of the approach taken by the Lord Ordinary in the first sentence quoted.&nbsp; However, there was no criticism of the views expressed in the remainder of the passage, and the Inner House’s own approach appears to have been consistent with them.&nbsp; Lord Penrose opined at paragraph 66:</p><p align="justify">“[66] In my opinion, the Lord Ordinary can be said to have misdirected himself in applying to the question whether Thorntons induced error in Mr Adams criteria that depended on personal knowledge of individual partners of the facts and circumstances from which the error arose rather than the knowledge of the firm of which he was client. As I have already commented, he was not assisted in this matter by argument. Counsel for the reclaimer’s submissions to the Lord Ordinary did not cover this ground. But the point could have been of materiality if the evidence had been available for the court to consider. Mr Adams’ complaint is against Thorntons, and is that at March 1995 and in and after 1997, he was left in ignorance of the possibility that he might have a claim against the firm by silence on the part of the firm associated with positive advice that he had a remedy against his former associate, and by the firm subsequently acting for him in pursuing that action….” </p><p align="justify">Lord Penrose went on to hold that on the facts found by the Lord Ordinary the obligation founded upon had prescribed.&nbsp; While in the circumstances of that case silence was said to have been associated with positive advice and actings, it is not clear that was critical to Lord Penrose’s view that the matter might have been of some materiality.</p><p align="justify">[44]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I turn to the more recent decisions.&nbsp; In Trustees of Rex Proctor &amp; Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme, supra, I agreed (at paragraph 207) with the view expressed in Johnston that on an ordinary construction “conduct” requires a positive act.&nbsp; In Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson LLP, supra, (at paragraph 34) Lord Tyre concurred with the views expressed in Johnston and by me in Rex Proctor.&nbsp; In neither case does there appear to have been extensive submissions in relation to the matter.</p><p align="justify">[45]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On a fair reading of the pursuer’s averments in Cond. 39 it maintains that the defenders had an obligation to advise it of the true sequence of events which led to the loss of the funds and that there was a possible claim against them (cf. Rex Proctor, paragraph 207).&nbsp; On the pleadings I am not satisfied that the pursuer is bound to fail to establish the grounds of action he puts forward, or that those grounds could not provide a basis for the obligation to advise it which the pursuer avers the defenders had (see eg Dryburgh v Scotts Media Tax Ltd, supra, per Opinion of the Court at paragraph 26).&nbsp; In the present case, unlike Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson LLP (paragraph 35), my understanding is that the duty to advise is said to have arisen on several of the bases of action on which the pursuer relies.&nbsp; (I also note in passing that I was unconvinced by Mr Duncan’s argument (which Lord Tyre accepted) that the existence of a continuing duty to advise would prevent prescription from ever occurring.&nbsp; The operation of the proviso would be likely to prevent any such scenario).</p><p align="justify">[46]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Having heard fuller argument on the issue than I did in Rex Proctor, and having reflected further upon it, I think there is a tenable argument that to construe “conduct” as including only positive acts may be too restrictive an interpretation.&nbsp; The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.) defines “conduct” as:</p><p align="justify">“Manner of conducting oneself or one’s life; behaviour; usually with more or less reference to its moral quality (good or bad). (Now the leading sense)”. </p><p align="justify">In my opinion, on a proper construction of section 6(4) the word “conduct” has its ordinary meaning of behaviour.&nbsp; The expression is wide enough to include an omission to act in breach of an obligation or duty.&nbsp; It is very difficult to see why it should be given a more restrictive meaning, particularly since it is clear that a broad view is to be taken to the construction of section 6(4) (BP Exploration Co Ltd v Chevron, per Lord Hope at paragraph 31, Lord Clyde at paragraphs 66‑67, Lord Millet at paragraph 97;&nbsp; Dryburgh v Scotts Media Tax Ltd, supra, Opinion of the Court at paragraphs 18 ‑ 20).&nbsp; Resort to the mischief rule points in the same direction.&nbsp; The mischief the error provision was intended to address is broad enough to encompass error induced by a failure of the debtor to act in breach of an obligation or duty.&nbsp; A construction of “conduct” which confined it to positive acts would fail to address part of the mischief.&nbsp; It would be very odd indeed if innocent action inducing error fell within the purview of the provision but reprehensible inaction in breach of duty did not.&nbsp; The equitable case for the latter circumstance being included within the scope of the mischief, and within the meaning of “conduct”, is as strong as the case for reprehensible action being included and stronger than the case for innocent action being included. </p><p align="justify">[47]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I turn then to the proviso.&nbsp; The defenders invoke it in Answer 39:</p><p align="justify">“Esto either HC or the liquidator were in error to any extent as to whether loss had been suffered (which is denied) they could with reasonable diligence have learned the truth by, at the very latest early 2008. Reference is made to the foregoing averments anent section 11(3).” </p><p align="justify">While strictly speaking the pursuer does not respond specifically to that averment other than by way of a general denial, both parties proceeded upon the basis that the pursuer’s averments anent section 11(3) were also the matters which it founded upon in response to the defenders’ reliance upon the proviso to section 6(4).</p><p align="justify">[48]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is a well‑established principle of statutory construction that a party seeking to avail himself of a proviso must raise and prove it, as it is in substance an exception (see Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (6th ed.), section 242 and the authorities referred to in footnote 71).&nbsp; Exceptionally, a provision may be in the form of a proviso but may in fact be an independent substantive provision (ie not a “true” proviso).&nbsp; I am satisfied that that is not the case here.&nbsp; I am also clear that, on a proper construction of section 6, subsection (4)(a) is an exception to the general rule in subsection (1) but that the proviso is an exception to that exception. </p><p align="justify">[49]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In BP Exploration Operating Co ltd v Chevron Transport (Scotland), supra, Lord Millet opined at paragraph 110 (emphasis added):</p><p align="justify">“[110] If the matter stopped there, any obligation on the part of Transport [the creditor in the obligation] to make reparation was not extinguished by the time it was served with the present proceedings. But Transport may still succeed in showing that its obligation was extinguished before 28 September 1995 by invoking the proviso to curtail the duration of the period to be excluded from the calculation of the primary period. If it can establish that the pursuers could with reasonable diligence have discovered the error at some time before 18 August 1995, then the excluded period will end at that earlier time.” </p><p align="justify">[50]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While none of the other members of the appellate committee addressed the issue of the operation of the proviso, none expressed any reservations as to what Lord Millet said in paragraph 110 (and at paragraph 33 of his speech Lord Hope made specific reference to, and agreed with, another aspect of Lord Millet’s speech).&nbsp; Moreover, in my opinion when the pleadings and the decision are examined it is clear that the committee must indeed have proceeded upon the basis which Lord Millett described.</p><p align="justify">[51]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A vessel had caused damage to loading arms at a jetty at the pursuers’ terminal.&nbsp; The pursuers raised an action against Chevron Shipping (“Shipping”) averring that that company were owners of the vessel.&nbsp; The pursuers averred that more than five years after the incident Shipping indicated that the owners were Chevron Tankers (“Tankers”).&nbsp; The pursuers raised a second action against Tankers.&nbsp; In their defences Tankers admitted ownership but averred that the vessel had been the subject of a bareboat charter and that the charterers were Chevron Transport (”Transport”).&nbsp; In both the Transport action and Tankers action the defenders pled that the obligation (to make reparation) relied upon had prescribed.&nbsp; In both of those actions the pursuers averred that error as to ownership had been induced by the words and conduct of Shipping acting on the defenders’ behalf.&nbsp; In both cases the defenders invoked the proviso to section 6(4)(a).&nbsp; The defenders averred that the pursuers could with reasonable diligence have discovered the error within five years of the incident.&nbsp; They set out steps they averred ought to have been taken by the pursuers.&nbsp; They averred that letters of protest written to the pursuers after the incident by the master of the vessel alerted them to the true identity of the owners.&nbsp; In each case the pursuers denied that they could with reasonable diligence have discovered the error more than five years before the action was raised.&nbsp; In the Tankers case the pursuers averred that they had no reason to disbelieve what Shipping had told them as to ownership; that in the circumstances reasonable diligence did not require seeking verification;&nbsp; and that no indication of the true identity of the owners had been given in any of the letters of protest.&nbsp; In the Transport case the pursuers did not positively aver that they could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the error within five years of the incident:&nbsp; but in response to the defenders’ averments they averred that they had had no reason to disbelieve Shipping; and that even if they had doubted what Shipping said they could not have ascertained by reference to any public register that Transport were bareboat charterers.&nbsp; The Lord Ordinary allowed a proof before answer in relation to all three actions.&nbsp; The First Division sustained the plea of prescription in the action against Transport and allowed a proof before answer in the other two actions.&nbsp; The House of Lords recalled that interlocutor and allowed a proof before answer in all three cases.&nbsp; In my opinion, since in the Transport case the pursuers did not positively aver that they could not with reasonable diligence have become aware of their error within five years of the incident, their Lordships must have proceeded on the basis that it was not incumbent upon the pursuers to do so.</p><p align="justify">[52]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In United Central Bakeries v Spooner Industries Limited [2013] CSOH 150 Lord Hodge followed the same approach as Lord Millett:</p><p align="justify">“117.… The burden of showing, for the purpose of the proviso to section 6(4), when UCB could with reasonable diligence have discovered the error rested on Spooner&nbsp; [the debtor in the obligation]…” </p><p align="justify">The views expressed in Johnston at paragraphs 6.109 and 6.107 accord with those of Lord Millett and Lord Hodge.</p><p align="justify">[53]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In Adams v Thorntons WS, supra, the pursuer raised an action for damages for professional negligence against his former solicitors more than 10 years after the transactions in which they had acted for him and in consequence of which he averred that he had sustained loss.&nbsp; A plea of prescription was taken.&nbsp; In order to defeat the prescription plea the pursuer required to establish both that the date the obligation became enforceable was postponed by virtue of section 11(3), and that he had been induced to refrain from making a relevant claim against the defenders by reason of error induced by words and conduct of certain partners of the defenders (section 6(4)(a)(ii)).&nbsp; The defenders invoked the proviso to section 6(4)(a), and the pursuer made certain averments in reply.&nbsp; The Lord Ordinary allowed a preliminary proof before answer on the issue of prescription.&nbsp; After proof he sustained the plea.&nbsp; He concluded that the pursuer had failed to establish the facts required to enable him to benefit from section 11(3) up to a point sufficiently late to avoid prescription (Adams v Thorntons WS, unreported, 19 August 2003, paragraphs 45 ‑ 46, 55 ‑ 58, 59).&nbsp; In addition he was not satisfied that the pursuer had proved (i) that an erroneous belief that he had no claim against the defenders had been induced in him by any words or conduct of the defenders’ partners;&nbsp; and (ii) that his reason for not pursuing a claim against the defenders between 1995 and 2000 was such induced error (paragraph 69).&nbsp; So far as is apparent from the Lord Ordinary’s Opinion the issue of the proviso does not appear to have featured in submissions, and he does not seem to have made any findings in respect of it in the section of his Opinion dealing with section 6(4).&nbsp; An Extra Division of the Inner House refused the pursuer’s reclaiming motion.&nbsp; It decided that the Lord Ordinary reached the correct conclusion in relation to the application of section 11(3);&nbsp; and that having regard to findings in fact made in connection with section 11(3) (viz that the pursuer could with reasonable diligence have been aware of the facts relevant to his claim in December 1990) the period after 17 December 1990 was not to be included in the period of error upon which the pursuer could rely for the purposes of section 6(4)(a)(ii).&nbsp; Lord Penrose delivered the principal Opinion.&nbsp; He observed at paragraphs 36 and 66:</p><p align="justify">“36. For sec 6(4) to provide protection the creditor must establish that he was in error, that the error was induced in one or other of the ways identified, and that he has not become disabled from relying on the error by the operation of the proviso …</p><p align="justify">66. … The first issue is whether Mr Adams has established as a fact that he was in error as to the scope of his remedies and because of that error refrained from pursuing a claim against Thorntons. If he was in error, he must then establish that the error was induced by Thorntons. And finally he must show that the error could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence until a point in time after which the discovery was irrelevant to the running of prescription against him.” </p><p align="justify">Lord Marnoch and Sir David Edward concurred that the reclaiming motion should be refused.&nbsp; Each reserved his opinion in relation to the more difficult points of construction of section 6(4) and section 11(3) which had been argued but did not require to be decided (paragraphs 1 ‑ 3, 76).</p><p align="justify">[54]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In these circumstances I have considerable doubt whether it is correct to say that Lord Penrose ruled on where the onus lay in relation to the proviso.&nbsp; In my opinion Mr Duncan seeks to read too much into paragraphs 36 and 66 of Lord Penrose’s Opinion.&nbsp; The context was a reclaiming motion following a preliminary proof where the Lord Ordinary had made findings in fact.&nbsp; In view of the facts found the question of onus in relation to the proviso was immaterial.&nbsp; Onus in relation to the proviso was not a matter the Inner House needed to consider, and there is no indication that it had the benefit of submissions on the point.&nbsp; Had Lord Penrose really intended to express a view at odds with Lord Millet’s I would have expected him to acknowledge that and to explain his reasons for disagreeing.&nbsp; He did none of that.&nbsp; In fact, while he referred to several passages in BP Exploration v Chevron he made no reference to paragraph 110.</p><p align="justify">[55]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; If, contrary to my view, Lord Penrose falls to be read as holding that the onus in relation to the proviso is on the creditor, I do not accept Mr Duncan’s submission that I am bound to follow Lord Penrose on that point.&nbsp; In my opinion if that was indeed what Lord Penrose said it does not form part of the ratio of the decision.&nbsp; I consider that I am free to follow BP Exploration v Chevron Transport (Scotland) and Lord Hodge in United Central Bakeries v Spooner Industries Limited, and I am satisfied that I should do so.</p><p align="justify">[56]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Accordingly, in my view it is for the defenders to establish that the proviso applies so as to exclude a period from the period of error founded upon by the pursuer.&nbsp; This is important because, even though I am of the view that the pursuer’s averments in relation to its reliance on section 11(3) are not adequate to set forth a case that it could not with reasonable diligence have been aware that relevant loss, injury or damage had occurred more than five years before the action was raised, it does not necessarily follow that the defenders will succeed in discharging the onus upon them of establishing that the pursuer could with reasonable diligence have discovered the error upon which it founds at a date earlier than the pursuer in fact discovered it.</p><p align="justify">[57]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In my opinion the pursuers’ averments in relation to section 6(4) are suitable for inquiry.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Pragmatism?</strong></p><p align="justify">[58]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Since inquiry is necessary in relation to the pursuer’s averments concerning section 6(4), and since the issues relating to reasonable diligence in connection with section 6(4) and section 11(3) would be likely to cover similar ground, I have considered whether I should simply allow inquiry in relation to both of those issues.&nbsp; In my opinion it would not be right to be swayed by that consideration.&nbsp; The pursuer has failed to discharge the onus upon it of pleading a relevant section 11(3) case.&nbsp; It would be wrong to ignore that and to allow the pursuer to elide the consequences of that failure.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Imputed knowledge</strong></p><p align="justify">[59]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The short answer to Mr Duncan’s “imputed knowledge” submission is that the hearing before me was to debate the relevancy of the pursuer’s pleadings in this action.&nbsp; Nowhere in those pleadings does the pursuer aver knowledge on the part of Burness of the matters upon which Mr Duncan seeks to rely.&nbsp; That is sufficient to deal with the submission.&nbsp; At a preliminary proof on prescription it will be a matter for proof whether Burness had the relevant knowledge;&nbsp; and, if they did, it will be a question of law having regard to the whole circumstances established at the preliminary proof whether that knowledge falls to be imputed to the pursuer;&nbsp; and, if so, for what purposes. </p><p align="justify"><strong>Decision:&nbsp; other matters</strong></p><p align="justify">[60]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mr Duncan attacked the relevancy of the pursuer’s pleadings in a number of respects.&nbsp; Ultimately he accepted that some points were not capable of being determined at debate:&nbsp; it is unnecessary to mention them.&nbsp; So far as the remainder are concerned, while the criticisms had been set out at length in the defenders’ note of argument Mr Duncan acknowledged that the principal issue for debate was whether the defenders’ plea of prescription could be sustained at this stage or whether a preliminary proof on prescription was required.&nbsp; Since that was so he dealt briefly with the additional submissions.&nbsp; In short these were (i) that the pursuer did not have relevant averments of a solicitor-client relationship between it and the defenders in relation to the payments of £19 million and £9.418 million, nor were there relevant averments as to the scope of the retainer;&nbsp; (ii) that the pursuer’s averments that it had sustained a loss were irrelevant;&nbsp; (iii) that on the hypothesis that the pursuer was not the defenders’ client the averments (a) that the payments had been held by the defenders in trust for the pursuer were irrelevant, (b) that the defenders owed the pursuer fiduciary duties were irrelevant;&nbsp; (iv) that the pursuer’s averments that the defenders owed the pursuer a delictual duty of care were irrelevant;&nbsp; and (v) that certain of the pursuer’s averments involved collateral matters and were irrelevant.</p><p align="justify">[61]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I too consider it possible to deal briefly with these submissions.&nbsp; So far as matters (i) to (iv) are concerned I am not persuaded that the pursuer’s averments are insufficient to entitle it to inquiry.&nbsp; I am not satisfied that the pursuer is bound to fail to establish that the defenders acted as its solicitors when it received the payments, and that they breached the duties they owed to it, even if it succeeds in proving all its averments relating to those matters (Jamieson v Jamieson 1952 SC (HL) 44).&nbsp; Similarly, I am not satisfied that if the pursuer proves its averments it will fail to prove that it has suffered a loss; or that it is bound to fail to establish that the defenders owed it the fiduciary duties condescended upon;&nbsp; or that it is bound to fail to establish that the defenders owed it a delictual duty of care.</p><p align="justify">[62]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The averments said to be collateral are averments of links between the eighth defender and companies controlled by Mr King;&nbsp; and averments that in December 2008 an unexplained payment of £200,000 was made to the eighth defender from the same Rosecliff Limited client account at Hassans into which the £9.412 million had been paid by the defenders.&nbsp; Mr Duncan submits that since none of this pre-dates either of the dates when the pursuer’s loss was sustained (in January and March 2007) it can have no possible bearing upon any of the pursuer’s grounds of action, and that it is simply “mud‑slinging”.</p><p align="justify">[63]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The averments complained of serve to give notice to the defenders of the pursuer’s intention to explore these matters at proof.&nbsp; The defenders offer no explanation as to why the £200,000 payment was made, nor do they clarify whether or not its source was the £9.412 million.&nbsp; If its source was the £9.412 million then part of a sum which the pursuer avers was paid away in breach of trust was in fact returned to the eighth defender.&nbsp; Moreover, the acceptance of the £200,000 payment and the eighth defender’s roles or involvement with Mr King and his companies in a period soon after the two payments might be relevant to the question what, if anything, the defenders ought to have advised the pursuer between the date of the payments and the pursuer discovering where they had gone.&nbsp; The matters said to be collateral might raise issues of judgement or probity which, arguably, could be relevant to the credibility and reliability of the eighth defender.&nbsp; Having regard to the whole circumstances which the pursuer avers on record I am not satisfied that I can conclude at this stage that the averments complained of are necessarily collateral and irrelevant.</p><p align="justify"><strong>Conclusions</strong></p><p align="justify">[64]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; With the exception of its section 11(3) case, the pursuer’s averments are suitable for inquiry.&nbsp; A preliminary proof on prescription appears to me to be the appropriate way forward.&nbsp; However at counsel’s request I shall put the case out by order to discuss the terms of an appropriate interlocutor to give effect to my decision, and to discuss further procedure.</p><p align="justify">[65]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I recognise that a number of my conclusions do not coincide with Lord Tyre’s conclusions in the case of Heather Capital Limited v Burness Paull &amp; Williamson.&nbsp; We have reached the same result on the pursuer’s section 11(3) case (even though the pursuer’s averments in that regard in the present case were somewhat fuller than those considered by Lord Tyre).&nbsp; Some of the matters which I have had to decide are issues which Lord Tyre does not appear to have been asked to consider.&nbsp; In Burness Paull it seems that the pursuer did not argue that the obligation of accounting for trust funds and the obligation to restore the value of trust property to the trust were obligations to which the short negative prescription did not apply.&nbsp; In relation to other matters - in particular section 6(4) ‑ I may have had the advantage of hearing arguments which were either additional to, or more fully developed than, the submissions made to Lord Tyre.&nbsp; Be that as it may, ultimately there is no escaping the fact that we have reached different conclusions on at least three material matters, viz (i) whether there are relevant averments of error;&nbsp; (ii) whether there are relevant averments of conduct by the defenders inducing the error;&nbsp; and (iii) whether the onus of averment and proof in relation to the proviso rests with the creditor or debtor in the relevant obligation.</p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/08/capital-claim-court-of-session-ruling.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-4034237448652286438Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:34:00 +00002016-07-30T18:03:07.187+01:00access to justiceaccess to legal servicescivil justiceConsultation on Court FeesCourt of SessionJudiciary of ScotlandLord PresidentScottish Courts and Tribunals ServiceScottish GovernmentNO MONEY NO JUSTICE: Slow, costly courts, £220K a year judges on junkets & justice staff on the take prompt Scottish Government proposal for 25% hike in court fees<p align="justify"><em><a title="Scotland's Courts less of a gateway to justice, more an expensive flop" href="http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/search/label/Scottish%20Courts%20and%20Tribunals%20Service"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-45CQC4KIxPw/V5zQqIx90iI/AAAAAAAAChM/UNrwSGlmb5EEHXdcygdewuc5W__zgwgjwCCo/s400/Court%2Bconsultation%2Bcover.jpg" width="340" align="left" height="246"></a>Scotland’s courts to become 25% more rip-off than before.</em> <strong>EVERYONE</strong> knows the <a href="https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/"><strong><u>Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service</u></strong></a> (SCTS) and our powerhouse Sheriff Courts &amp; the fabled Court of Session teeter on the brink of consternation, calamity, comedy and collapse at the end of each working legal week.</p><p align="justify">Every time a member of the judiciary takes time off their busy schedule of frequently flying £5K international holidays on the taxpayer - to perform the actual £200,000 a year job of being a judge and sit and listen to the daily farce and often dodgy evidence presented by Crown Office prosecutors before the Criminal Courts - you would honestly think from their faces - the end of the world had arrived.</p><p align="justify">Judges are so <strike>rich</strike> poorly paid these days, they have to conceal their vast wealth with the threat of constitutional calamity if it were revealed - or flog their multi million pound Victorian villas, properties in the country, undeclared holiday homes in Dubai or wherever - to members of their own family – for millions of pounds and avoiding those awful taxes which apply to the rest of us. </p><p align="justify">Let’s not even talk about the others … week long holidays in Qatar, North America, the far east, or jetting off to New Zealand for a week, then retiring a few days later, the gold Rolexes, collections of valuable items, taxpayer funded security fit for Royalty, extra ermine gowns &amp; hanging around the works of Leonardo Da Vinci in the hope of life eternal.</p><p align="justify">How about the <strike>well</strike> <strike>paid</strike> poorly paid overworked court staff you say? Well, not really. </p><p align="justify">‘Hospitality’, undeclared deals on the side with law firms and other less talked about financial arrangements for increasing numbers of court staff compensate for the daily struggle of putting pen to paper and reminding the elderly sheriff the one before him ‘is a bad yin’.</p><p align="justify">So, where does all the money come from to pay for your access to justice and the privilege of appearing before someone festooned in 18th Century fancy dress and surrounded by wood panelling and enormously expensive digital recording equipment - conveniently unplugged so as not to record the daily courtroom farce or your expert witness disagreeing with Lord know-it-all.</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Government gave the Scottish Court Service a whopping £88.9million of your cash in the 2016-2017 budget. Plenty there to go around.</p><p align="justify">The judiciary on it’s own receive a staggering £40million of public cash, to groan, grizzle, gloat &amp; giggle as they listen to counsel after counsel, litigant after litigant – while dreaming of appearances &amp; junkets to warmer, wealthier climes.</p><p align="justify">The Legal Aid budget – once standing at over £160million a year and now allegedly a very very very dodgy £136.9million in the 2016-2017 budget - your cash going on lawyers, criminals and some of the most laughable, inept court hearings in existence.</p><p align="justify">The Crown Office &amp; Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) – widely regarded by all sides as the pre-eminently most corrupt institution in the entire Scottish justice system – received a staggering £112.5million of your cash. To do what? to cover up it’s own staff and prosecutors leaking case files and evidence to criminals, or snorting cocaine and beating up Police Officers.</p><p align="justify">And, let’s not forget the £58 million of public cash spent by the Scottish Court &amp; Tribunal Service on new doorknobs, a lick of paint and new scones for the Court of Session ‘powerhouse’ - which must rank as Europe’s slowest, most distorted, most expensive &amp; interest ridden seat of justice, ever.</p><p align="justify">All this must be paid for, somehow. Loads-a-money. Your money. Certainly not theirs, for they are all public servants paid for by you.</p><p align="justify">So we come to the Scottish Government’s proposal to go for ‘full cost recovery’, buried in the now familiar loaded consultation papers issued by the Justice Directorate of the Scottish Government.</p><p align="justify">And, instead of blaming the fee rises on our slow, difficult and inaccessible courts, the Scottish Government instead has chosen to blame budgetary cuts imposed by Westminster.</p><p align="justify"><a title="Consultation on Court Fees 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7bnJnb0IxZV8zdEU/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-54PCfSwgBFA/V5zQn-XOFHI/AAAAAAAAChI/7JWRNPEJTaEIVbBbkpXX7fT67hBJEDqrQCCo/s400/fees%2Bconsult.jpg" width="250" align="left" height="353"></a>The <a title="Scottish Government Consulation on Court Fees 2016" href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3y3fRjsv8Y7bnJnb0IxZV8zdEU/"><strong><u>Scottish Government Consultation on Court Fees 2016</u></strong></a> sets out proposals for fees in the Court of Session, the High Court of the Justiciary, the Sheriff Appeal Court, the sheriff court, the Sheriff Personal Injury Court, and the justice of the peace court. Court fees are a major source of income for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and it has become necessary to increase fees in order to achieve full cost recovery. It seeks views on two options each of which is aimed at providing full cost recovery.</p><p align="justify">Fee hikes across the board of almost 25% for civil actions in Scotland and alternative targeted rises are being proposed by Scottish ministers – as part of a consultation on Scottish court fees which runs until October.</p><p align="justify">Court fees have generally been reviewed every three years, with the last round being implemented in 2015, however this time around <strong>"the Scottish Government has decided to accelerate the move towards full cost recovery</strong>".</p><p align="justify">The <a title="Consultation on Court Fees" href="https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/courts-judicial-appointments-policy-unit/court-fees"><strong><u>Consultation on Court Fees</u></strong></a> – open until 12 October 2016 - sets out proposals for fees in the Court of Session, the High Court of the Justiciary, the Sheriff Appeal Court, the sheriff court, the Sheriff Personal Injury Court, and the justice of the peace court. Court fees are a major source of income for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and it has become necessary to increase fees in order to achieve full cost recovery. It seeks views on two options each of which is aimed at providing full cost recovery.</p><p align="justify">The Scottish Government states <strong>“It is necessary to raise fees so that the Scottish Court and Tribunals Service is able to achieve full cost recovery from its courts. We are consulting on two options seeking the views of stakeholders on the best way to achieve this. Stakeholders will be able to provide their opinions on which option is better from the point of view of their own court actions and, if they are an organisation, of their clients. This will help the Scottish Government's decision on which option should be incorporated into the necessary Scottish Statutory Instruments.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“A review is justified both by the need to end the cost to the public purse of subsidising the civil justice system, and by the introduction of the new simple procedure which replaces the current small claims and summary cause procedures."</strong></p><p align="justify">Simple procedure will be phased in from 28 November for actions worth not more than £5,000. It is planned to retain existing fee levels for summary cause and small claims actions, so that at present levels lodging a claim for up to £200 under simple procedure would mean a fee of £18, and £78 for a claim above that level and up to £5,000. </p><p align="justify">If a flat rise is the option chosen, all Court of Session and sheriff court fees will rise by 24%, the amount needed to fund a deficit of £5.4m on gross fee income of £22.2m in 2014-15. That would mean lodging fees of £22 or £97 for simple procedure cases, £119 (from £96) for summary applications and ordinary sheriff court actions, £187 (from £150) for non-simple divorces, and £266 (from £214) for Court of Session or Sheriff Personal Injury Court actions. Hearing fees would jump from £227 to £282 in the sheriff court, and from £96 to £119 per half hour (single judge), or from £239 to £297 per half hour (bench of three) in the Court of Session.</p><p align="justify">Suggested targeted fee rises, the other option, would raise more money overall. The £18 simple procedure lodging fee would remain unchanged, as would the £150 divorce lodging fee and the £227 sheriff court hearing fees, as well as fees in the recently introduced Sheriff Appeal Court. However there would be a £100 lodging fee for a simple procedure claim for more than £200, £120 for summary applications and ordinary causes, and £300 for a Court of Session action. In that court the cost of lodging a record would almost double from £107 to £200, and hearing fees more than double to £200 for every half hour before a single judge, and £500 per half hour before a bench of three.</p><p align="justify">The alternative scheme would also see the introduction of graded fees in commissary court proceedings for authorising executors to handle a deceased person's estate. Whereas at present for all estates worth more than £10,000 there is a flat fee of £225, it is proposed to exempt estates worth less than £50,000 but to charge £250 for estates between £50,000 and £250,000, and £500 for larger estates.</p><p align="justify">The consultation paper states on Page 8:<strong> "We are aware that there will be a tipping point where fee increases may deter people from raising actions", the paper observes. "We do not believe that the level of rises in either option 1 or 2 as proposed will have a deterrent effect as individual fees will still be relatively low, particularly when viewed against the total costs of taking legal action including the cost of legal advice."</strong></p><p align="justify">Be sure to enter your thoughts in the Scottish Government’s consultation. Go here to do so: <a title="Consultation on Court Fees" href="https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/courts-judicial-appointments-policy-unit/court-fees"><strong><u>Consultation on Court Fees</u></strong></a> You have until 12 October 2016.</p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/07/no-money-no-justice-slow-costly-courts.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20722989.post-6115267483633171918Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:11:00 +00002016-07-29T16:11:42.263+01:00access to justicedisability rightsLaw Society of ScotlandLegal AidLegal SparkScottish GovernmentScottish Legal Aid BoardJUSTICE DENIED: Solicitor accuses Law Society of Scotland of "abuse of power" - as legal aid decision by solicitors regulator leaves disabled clients denied access to justice<p align="justify"><em><a title="Legal Spark" href="http://www.legalspark.co.uk/"><img style="float: left; margin: 5px 10px 0px 0px; display: inline" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-l5fO3Wc9AL4/V5truxNAxdI/AAAAAAAACg4/kWSX9qCfck4mGMBJR_j_A_1fPzS8jeSHwCCo/s400/Legal%2BSpark.jpg" width="340" align="left" height="233"></a>Solicitor Daniel Donaldson campaigns for reinstatement of legal aid certification.</em>&nbsp;<strong>THE</strong> <a href="http://www.lawscot.org.uk/"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland</u></strong></a> has been accused of “abuse of power” and terminating access to justice for disabled &amp; vulnerable clients - after a law centre was forced to pull out of legal aid work due to what appear to be internal politics at the professional body for Scottish solicitors.</p><p align="justify">The claims are made by a disabled solicitor – Daniel Donaldson – who founded <a title="Legal Spark" href="http://www.legalspark.co.uk/"><strong><u>Legal Spark</u></strong></a> – a Glasgow based law centre - with the aim of helping disabled people and other clients excluded from Scotland’s legal system.</p><p align="justify">Last year, the Law Society of Scotland granted permission to law centre Legal Spark to take on legal aid cases – allowing the law practice to take on cases from disabled people who had been unable to secure legal representation for their discrimination cases.</p><p align="justify">However, after the Law Society approved the law practice to engage in legal aid work, certification for Legal Spark to take on new legal aid cases has since been withdrawn - with unconvincing explanations from the Edinburgh based regulator - resulting in clients facing an uncertain future in terms of their access to the legal system.</p><p align="justify">Daniel Donaldson – who qualified as a solicitor six years ago – spent a year discussing Legal Spark with the Law Society of Scotland - which originally described the disabled solicitor’s proposals to create a facility to provide disabled clients with access to justice as <strong>“refreshing”</strong> and <strong>“innovative”</strong>.</p><p align="justify">However, the solicitor has now accused the Law Society of abandoning disabled clients and has set up a public petition calling for help in restoring his law centre’s legal aid certification</p><p align="justify">Readers can view more details of the petition here: <a title="Law Society of Scotland: Allow Legal Spark Legal Practice to continue Legal Aid Work" href="https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/law-society-of-scotland-allow-legal-spark-legal-practice-to-continue-legal-aid-work"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland: Allow Legal Spark Legal Practice to continue Legal Aid Work</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Speaking to a DOI journalist earlier today, solicitor Daniel Donaldson said the Law Society’s decision would deprive disabled people of access to justice.</p><p align="justify">Mr Donaldson said: <strong>"It's completely unacceptable for any public authority to ignore disabled service users.&nbsp; We set us Legal Spark because of a problem with access to justice.”&nbsp; </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“We volunteered to do legal aid work to help unrepresented disabled people.&nbsp; Now the LSS has forced us to stop.&nbsp; What's changed in six months? Nothing.&nbsp; They've made this decision for other reasons and not ,"public protection" as claimed.”</strong> <p align="justify"><strong>“The LSS believes they can do what they like with no scrutiny or accountability. Individuals are free to abuse their position. I call upon the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to strip them off all their regulatory functions and being an end to their abuse of power"</strong> <p align="justify">Out of concern for clients welfare after the Law Society’s decision to revoke legal aid certification - Legal Spark contacted 134 lawyers from a list provided by the Law Society of Scotland of law firms who take on civil legal aid cases and specialise in discrimination law.</p><p align="justify">However, not one law firm has taken any of Legal Spark’s clients – a move which is generating suspicion among some legal observers that the Law Society is unfairly controlling and restricting certain law firms and their clients access to legal aid.</p><p align="justify">The <a title="Law centre&rsquo;s disabled clients &lsquo;abandoned&rsquo; by governing body" href="http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/law-centres-disabled-clients-abandoned-by-governing-body/"><strong><u>Disability News Service reported on the story</u></strong></a>, quoting&nbsp; a Law Society Scotland spokeswoman who said: her organisation had made <strong>“a mistake”</strong> in originally granting Legal Spark permission to carry out civil legal aid work, before realising that it was <strong>“not entitled to provide this type of advice under the society’s civil legal assistance quality assurance scheme”.</strong></p><p align="justify">The Law Society spokeswoman said: “<strong>The committee made a final decision on 16 June that a waiver could not be granted for public protection reasons and as the compliance certificate for Legal Spark had been issued in error, it could no longer provide advice funded by legal aid. </strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>“The committee agreed that given the circumstances, Legal Spark could continue working with its legal aid clients until 30 June, to allow sufficient time to make alternative arrangements for clients.”</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>She said law centres have to be “underpinned by a solicitor practice unit [which she said Legal Spark was not]in order to be able to be on the civil legal aid quality assurance scheme register and provide legal aid funded advice”.</strong></p><p align="justify"><strong>She added: “While it is rare for something to go wrong, clients have to be able to seek redress and as it currently stands, Legal Spark is not in a position to meet those requirements.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The Disability News Service further reported:&nbsp; By noon yesterday (28 July), the Law Society Scotland had failed to explain why it has refused to enter into mediation, although it claims that it was “still in communication with Legal Spark”.</p><p align="justify">The website of Legal Spark describes the legal services provider as&nbsp; an innovative legal practice. Legal spark is a law centre, not a firm of solicitors.</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark state:<strong> “All lawyers will provide legal services,&nbsp; but our practice is unique. Our practice is driven to maximise social impact, rather than to maximise profits for shareholders. Our business is ethical, and our legal practice promotes social responsibility.”</strong></p><p align="justify">The law centre also pledges to reinvest their profits of commercial legal work to help people by:</p><p align="justify">* organising and taking part in outreach events in communities </p><p align="justify">* providing legal advice and representation for disabled people </p><p align="justify">* maintaining a commitment to legal aid work</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark are located at 22 Montrose Street, Merchant City, Glasgow G1 1RE email: <a href="mailto:contact@legalspark.co.uk"><strong><u>contact@legalspark.co.uk</u></strong></a> </p><p align="justify"><strong>Petition : </strong><a title="Law Society of Scotland: Allow Legal Spark Legal Practice to continue Legal Aid Work" href="https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/law-society-of-scotland-allow-legal-spark-legal-practice-to-continue-legal-aid-work"><strong><u>Law Society of Scotland: Allow Legal Spark Legal Practice to continue Legal Aid Work</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Campaign created by: Daniel Donaldson</p><p align="justify">Campaign website: <a href="http://www.legalspark.co.uk/"><strong><u>http://www.legalspark.co.uk/</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">Campaign facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/legalspark"><strong><u>http://www.facebook.com/legalspark</u></strong></a></p><p align="justify">To: The Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and others</p><p align="justify">The Law Society and Legal Aid Board informed Legal Spark Legal Practice that they had to stop all legal aid work on 30th June. As a result, "A", "B' plus many other disabled clients are forced to forego representation. They have the power to reverse their decision, together we can make that happen.</p><p align="justify">Why is this important?</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark was formed as a result of the crisis in legal aid. People were going without representation because they could not afford a lawyer. This is particularly the case for disabled people.</p><p align="justify">No one else would do this type of work, as it was deemed too expensive, not financially viable and also too complex.</p><p align="justify">Daniel Donaldson, a disabled Solicitor, set up Legal Spark with the Support of the Scottish Institute for Enterprise under their Young Innovators Challenge 2015 programme.</p><p align="justify">Daniel wanted to develop creative solutions to help people access justice and to fix the exclusion that disabled people face from the legal system.</p><p align="justify">Daniel spent one year talking to the Law Society about this issue, highlighting that it was important that everyone could access a lawyer.</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark consulted with the Chief Executive (Lorna Jack), the Head of Professional Practice, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (James Ness) and the Secretary to the Civil Legal Aid Quality Assurance Committee (Hannah Sayers) amongst others.</p><p align="justify">A document was prepared that explained what Legal Spark was planning to do. The Law Society accepted this document and did not object. The Law Society encouraged Legal Spark and found their approach "refreshing" and "innovative".</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark was granted permission to do Legal Aid work in November 2015, and a compliance certificate was issued in December 2015. Legal Spark began helping the many disabled people that needed their help and began to have success.</p><p align="justify">In April 2016, the Law Society decided that they had made an "error" and instructed Legal Spark to stop all Legal Aid work by Thursday 30 June 2016. By this stage, Legal Spark had a number of clients, with active and complex cases, some of which were about to go to Court.</p><p align="justify">"A" is one such client. They had experienced awful disability discrimination from a University. They were not given adequate support to help them during a course, and had to leave. Additionally, Legal Spark uncovered evidence that the University's staff had used "unprofessional language" in their approach to "A". This case has now been lodged in Court.</p><p align="justify">"B" is another client adversely affected by this decision. B is also disabled and is housebound. They had tried to find a lawyer for sometime but because of their rural location in the Highlands there were no Solicitors available to help. Legal Spark took on this case and was successful (in part) in achieving a resolution for B. However, because B had been adversely affected by a decision of Highland Council, and had lost out financially, the case may need to go to Court. B is unable to find anyone else to help them.</p><p align="justify">These are only two examples of where Legal Spark is making a difference, there are others too.</p><p align="justify">Since establishing Legal Spark, Daniel Donaldson has not drawn a salary and has used some of his own money to sustain the Legal Practice while it develops and is able to stand on its own feet.</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark has also grown to enable it to employ staff and provide much need paid employment to some disabled people and unemployed law graduates.</p><p align="justify">The Legal Aid certificate meant that Legal Spark could help people who could not access help elsewhere. Now "A", "B" and other will have to go without representation because of the Law Society of Scotland's failures.</p><p align="justify">The Law Society's Chief Executive (Lorna Jack)says that they have to act in the public interest. The Director of Regulation (Philip Yelland) shares this view.</p><p align="justify">1. Where is the public interest in denying disabled people representation?<br>2. Also, where is the public interest is giving permission to do Legal Aid work only to revoke that permission 6 months later?</p><p align="justify">The Law Society say that there are other Solicitors who can help, however this is not true.</p><p align="justify">Legal Spark contacted 134 Civil Legal Aid lawyers with advertised specialism in discrimination law. Even the biggest Legal Aid firm in Scotland could not help.</p><p align="justify">The Law Society has said that this will cause Legal Spark’s disabled client’s “inconvenience”. This is an offensive comment; they have never met any client, they have ignored client’s opinions, and also refused to acknowledge that they will suffer substantial prejudice in their cases because of the Law Society’s decision.</p><p align="justify">This petition is addressed to the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.</p><p align="justify">It is important that you fulfil your roles correctly.</p><p align="justify">Overturn your decision to stop Legal Spark doing legal aid work, remedy the mistake you have made and apologise. This is the only way you can restore public trust and continue to say you act in the public interest.</p><p align="justify">Allow Legal Spark, and their clients the opportunity to continue to work together for the public interest and tackle the horrors faced by disabled people on a daily basis.<br>How it will be delivered</p><p align="justify">Signatures to this petition will be emailed, delivered in person, or a press conference will be arranged.</p>http://petercherbi.blogspot.com/2016/07/justice-denied-solicitor-accuses-law.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Diary of Injustice)6